[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 208 (Thursday, October 27, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66714-66715]
[FR Doc No: 2011-27834]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13234-002]

City and Borough of Sitka, AK; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On September 1, 2011, and supplemented on October 17, 2011, the
City and Borough of Sitka filed an application for a preliminary
permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA),
proposing to study the feasibility of the Takatz Lake Hydroelectric
Project (Takatz Lake Project) to be located on Takatz Lake and Takatz
Creek, about 21 miles east of the city of Sitka, Alaska, on the east
side of Baranof Island. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit is to
grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during
the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit
holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter
upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express
permission.
    The proposed Takatz Lake Project would consist of the following new
facilities: (1) A 200-foot-high by 250-foot-long primary concrete dam
that would raise the elevation of the existing lake; (2) a 63-foot-high
by 100-foot-long secondary saddle dam; (3) an impoundment with a 740-
acre surface area at a full pool elevation of 1,040 feet above mean sea
level, with an active capacity of 82,400 acre feet; (4) a 2,800-foot-
long, 6.5-foot by 7-foot horseshoe-tunnel power conduit fed by a
concrete intake structure or lake tap; (5) a 72-inch-diameter 1,000-
foot-long steel penstock; (6) a 120-foot-long by 80-foot-wide
powerhouse containing two Francis-type generation units having a total
installed capacity of 27.7 megawatts; (7) a 100-foot-long by 70-foot-
wide switchyard; (8) an about 26-mile-long, 138-kilovolt transmission
line that consists of underground and overhead segments, including an
alternative for a submarine segment; (9) an about 3-mile-long access
road; and (10) appurtenant facilities. The

estimated annual generation output for the project would be 106.9
gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Christopher Brewton, Utility Director,
Electric Department, City and Borough of Sitka, Alaska, 105 Jarvis
Street, Sitka, AK 99835; Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Joseph Adamson; Phone:<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.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. 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 http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-(866) 208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-13234) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: October 21, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-27834 Filed 10-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 26, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60943-60946]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27794]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0011; FRL-9972-58--Region 9]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the Pacific Coast Pipe
Lines Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 9 is issuing
a Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion of the surface soil portion of
the Pacific Coast Pipe Lines (PCPL) Superfund Site (Site) located in
Fillmore, California, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and
requests public comments on this proposed action. The NPL, promulgated
pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an
appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). EPA and the State of California, through the
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), have determined that
there is no exposure to contaminated soil at the Site and that all
appropriate response actions at the identified parcel under CERCLA,
other than maintenance, monitoring and five-year reviews, have been
completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions
under Superfund.
    This partial deletion pertains to the surface soil; a map
indicating the area to be deleted is in the public docket. The
groundwater will remain on the NPL and is not being considered for
deletion as part of this action.

DATES: Comments must be received by January 25, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1989-0011, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line instructions
for submitting comments.
     Email: Project Manager: [email protected] or Community
Involvement Coordinator: [email protected].
     Mail: Holly Hadlock (SFD-7-3), U.S. EPA, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
     Hand delivery: Holly Hadlock (SFD-7-3), U.S. EPA, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. Such deliveries are
accepted only during EPA's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
1989-0011. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov website is
an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, will be publicly available only in the hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the following
repositories:
    Superfund Records Center, 75 Hawthorne Street Room 3110, San
Francisco, California, Hours: 8:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m.;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Site Repository: Fillmore Library, 502 2nd Street, Fillmore,
California. Call<PHONE_NUMBER> for hours of operation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Holly Hadlock, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. EPA, Region 9 (SFD-7-3), 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Intended Partial Site Deletion

I. Introduction

    EPA Region 9 announces its intent to delete the surface soil
portion of the PCPL Superfund Site from the NPL and requests public
comment on this proposed action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40
CFR part 300 which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to
Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA maintains the NPL
in order to identify sites that appear to present a significant risk to
public health, welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL are
eligible for remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance
Superfund (Fund). This partial deletion of the Pacific Coast Pipeline
Site is proposed in accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e) and is consistent
with the Notice of Policy Change: Partial Deletion of Sites Listed on
the National Priorities List. 60 FR 55466 (Nov. 1, 1995). As described
in 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, a portion of a site deleted from the NPL
remains eligible for Fund-financed remedial action if future conditions
warrant such actions.
    EPA will accept comments on the proposal to partially delete this
site for thirty (30) days after publication of this document in the
Federal Register.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from
the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted
from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a
determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in
consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have
been met:
    i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
    ii. all appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been
implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is
appropriate; or
    iii. the remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no
significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore,
the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
    Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, EPA conducts five-
year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial actions
where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at a
site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure. EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if a site is deleted
from the NPL. EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued
protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available
that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a significant
release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be
restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.

III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of the surface soil
portion of the Site:
    (1) EPA consulted with the State before developing this Notice of
Intent for Partial Deletion.
    (2) EPA has provided the State 30 working days for review of this
notice prior to publication of it today.
    (3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, EPA has
determined that no further response is appropriate.
    (4) The State of California, through DTSC, has concurred with the
deletion of the surface soil portion of the Pacific Coast Pipe Lines
Superfund Site from the NPL.
    (5) Concurrently, with the publication of this Notice of Intent for
Partial Deletion in the Federal Register, a notice is being published
in two major local newspapers, the Ventura County Star and the Fillmore
Gazette. The notices announce the 30-day public comment period
concerning the Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion of the Site from
the NPL.
    (6) EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed partial
deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for
public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories
identified above.
    If comments are received within the 30-day comment period on this
document, EPA will evaluate and respond accordingly to the comments
before making a final decision to delete the surface soil portion. If
necessary, EPA will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any
significant public comments received. After the public comment period,
if EPA determines it is still appropriate to delete the surface soil
portion of the PCPL Superfund Site, the Regional Administrator will
publish a final Notice of Partial Deletion in the Federal Register.
Public notices, public submissions and copies of the Responsiveness
Summary, if prepared, will be made available to interested parties and
included in the site information repositories listed above.
    Deletion of a portion of a site from the NPL does not itself
create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations.
Deletion of a portion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter
EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is
designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist EPA
management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion
of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for future
response actions, should future conditions warrant such actions.

IV. Basis for Partial Site Deletion

    The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the
surface soil portion of the PCPL Superfund Site from the NPL:

Site Background and History

    The Site (CERCLIS ID #CAD980636781) is just east of the City of
Fillmore in Ventura County, California. It is north of Highway 126 and
the Santa Clara River and east of Pole Creek. It was a former oil
refinery that shut down in 1950, then a crude oil pumping station until
2002. Refinery wastes from numerous on-site waste pits resulted in
groundwater becoming contaminated with benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene,
and xylene. On June 24, 1988, the Site was proposed for NPL listing (53
FR 23988). On October 4, 1989, EPA added the Site to the NPL (54

FR 41015). There is one site-wide Operable Unit that covers both
groundwater and surface soil. The surface soil is being addressed in
this proposed action. A map of the proposed deletion area is in the
docket.

Ongoing Development

    The 55-acre former refinery property is zoned for industrial and
agricultural use. Land use in the surrounding area is commercial,
residential, agricultural, and undeveloped open space. Concurrent with
the remedial action, the property was graded into lots for commercial
use. The property owner, Chevron Corporation, has leased the property
to Cenergy Power for use as a solar energy facility.

2011 Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    In 2011 EPA conducted a focused RI of the surface soil, defined as
0 to 10 feet below ground surface (bgs) for the Site, to determine the
nature and extent of soil contamination and to evaluate the potential
for soil vapor intrusion. Investigations before the 1992 Record of
Decision (ROD) determined that the surface soil was no longer a source
of contamination to groundwater because none of the contaminants in the
soil were found in the groundwater. Because the contaminants in soil
were not migrating to groundwater, EPA limited its soil investigation
for the 2011 RI to the surface soil. EPA concluded that there are no
exposure pathways for contaminants below 10 feet bgs, as no on-site
workers, recreational users, residents, or ecological receptors would
be exposed to contaminants below 10 feet.
    The primary contaminants of concern in the soil were lead and
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Three contaminants were
detected in soil gas above health-based screening levels in a few areas
on the Site: Benzene, ethylbenzene, and naphthalene. The vapor
intrusion investigation conducted as part of the 2011 RI showed that
benzene in groundwater does not pose a vapor intrusion health risk
because the benzene vapors are naturally biodegrading to concentrations
below health-based levels before making their way to the surface.
    EPA evaluated five remedial alternatives for the soil remedy in the
2011 FS: (1) No action; (2) excavation with off-site disposal; (3)
excavation with on-site disposal and capping; (4) excavation with
composting; and (5a and 5b) excavation with solidification and on-site
disposal (two solidification options were evaluated). All alternatives
except for the no action alternative included institutional controls to
restrict future use of the property. Alternatives 4 and 5b did not
address all soil contaminants and EPA deemed them, along with
Alternative 1, not protective of human health and the environment.

2011 Remedy for Soils

    EPA selected Alternative 3 for the soil remedy in the ROD Amendment
dated September 29, 2011. An earlier ROD for the site, dated March 31,
1992, selected groundwater extraction and treatment as the remedy for
the contaminated groundwater and soil vapor extraction for the
contaminated vadose zone but did not address soil contamination at the
Site. The major components of the soil remedy were: (1) Consolidation
of excavated soil in a former on-site waste pit; (2) an engineered cap
to prevent leaching of contaminants into groundwater; and (3)
institutional controls to ensure the cap integrity would be maintained
and to restrict the future use of the property to commercial and
recreational uses only. The Remedial Action Objectives for soil were:
(1) Prevent human exposure through direct dermal contact, ingestion,
and inhalation of shallow soil and soil vapor contaminated above
threshold levels for commercial land use, construction activities, and
recreational activities; (2) prevent contaminants in waste pit (lead,
PAHs) from migrating into underlying groundwater; and (3) reduce
contamination in soil below toxicity threshold levels so it is not
toxic to the plants and animals of the existing scrub habitat.
    The 2011 ROD Amendment cleanup level for surface soil lead is 320
mg/kg. This concentration, based on the Adult Blood-Lead Model, could
result in a blood-lead concentration equal to 1 [micro]g/dL in exposed
workers and recreational users. In selecting this cleanup level, EPA
has prohibited the Site being used for residences, schools, day cares,
or a hospital. In addition, two other lead cleanup levels were chosen
for ecological receptors in the hillside scrub habitat at the east edge
of the site: 26 mg/kg for the top six inches of soil and 56 mg/kg for
soil from six inches down to six feet.

Response Actions

    Pursuant to a Consent Decree, Chevron prepared all remedial design
(RD) documents and conducted all soil cleanup activities with EPA and
DTSC oversight. RD activities included preparing work plans and design
documents, notifying the public, obtaining necessary permits, and
conducting additional soil sampling to further delineate the lateral
extent of contamination and to determine if the historical soil berms
throughout the Site had contamination exceeding ROD Amendment cleanup
levels. The main consolidation area (CA) was designed to accommodate
23,500 cubic yards (cy) of soil; however, a supplemental CA was
designed as a contingency in case more volume was needed than the
original estimate of 19,600 cy.
    RA construction activities took place during two construction
seasons, from May 2013 to November 2013 and from March 2014 to November
2014. Contaminated soil was removed from locations with concentrations
above cleanup levels including 39 locations with elevated lead, 40
locations with elevated PAHs, and 17 locations with elevated levels of
both. In addition, it was determined that elevated levels of chemicals
with soil gas survey results exceeding risk-based criteria were co-
located with soil containing elevated levels of PAHs and these soils
were removed during excavation (RA Report, page 13). Approximately
43,612 cy of soil were excavated during the RA. 41,899 cy were placed
in the two CAs: 22,425 cy in the main CA and 19,474 cy in the
Supplemental CA. The remaining 1,713 cy, encountered and excavated
after the two CA caps were in place, were disposed of as a non-
hazardous waste at Clean Harbors' Buttonwillow, California, landfill
because these soils did not meet hazardous waste criteria and did not
contain RCRA-listed waste. Once analytical results from the lab
confirmed that ROD Amendment soil-cleanup levels had been met, the
excavations were backfilled with clean fill. A 5-foot-thick engineered
cap was placed on each CA. Each cap consists of several layers designed
to prevent penetration and vertical water infiltration.

Cleanup Levels

    EPA reviewed data from soil samples collected and analyzed from
each excavation location to confirm that ROD Amendment cleanup levels
had been met. Post-remediation soil vapor sampling was conducted to
confirm that soil gas cleanup levels had been met. In 2015 EPA
determined that all contaminants of concern were below their cleanup
levels and that the remedy was functioning as designed.

Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring

    The operation, maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) of the soil
remedy includes periodic inspections of the CA caps and performance of
any necessary

maintenance. The Final Soil Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan
establishes an inspection, monitoring, and maintenance program and a
schedule of activities for the first five years following the 2014
completion of the soil RA. Chevron is responsible for OM&M activities
and EPA is responsible for oversight.

Institutional Controls/Restrictions on Use of the Site

    The soil remedy for the Site includes institutional controls to
restrict future property use to commercial and recreational purposes
and to limit actions that could interfere with the remedy (the caps).
Consistent with the institutional controls selected in the ROD
Amendment, EPA, DTSC, and Chevron developed a land use covenant to
restrict the use of the Site; this covenant was recorded at the Ventura
County Recorder's Office on August 19, 2016, and ``runs with the
land,'' meaning the restrictions are binding on current and subsequent
property owners and remain in effect until they are formally removed or
modified. A copy of the covenant is in the docket.

2016 Five-Year Review

    EPA conducts reviews every five years to determine if remedies are
functioning as intended and if they continue to be protective of human
health and the environment. Because contaminants remain in the PCPL
Site soil above levels that would allow for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure, EPA will continue to conduct five-year reviews,
as required by statute. EPA issued the Fourth Five-Year Review Report
on August 22, 2016, and concluded that the soil remediation is complete
and the remedy at the PCPL Site is functioning as intended and is
protective of human health and the environment in both the short-term
and the long-term. There were no issues or recommendations. EPA will
conduct the next five-year review in 2021.

Community Involvement

    EPA prepared a Community Involvement Plan in 2011. EPA held
numerous community meetings before and during the soil cleanup, and
issued fact sheets and postcard updates. EPA also conducted Site tours
before the soil cleanup began. At EPA's request, the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry prepared a Health Consultation that
evaluated the possible health effects from airborne dust at the Site.
It concluded that community members were not likely to be exposed to
lead or PAHs in Site soil or dust at levels that could cause health
effects. EPA released a fact sheet shortly before publication of this
Notice informing the community of the proposal to delete the surface
soil portion of the Site from the NPL and how to submit comments.

Determination That the Criteria for Deletion Have Been Met

    EPA has followed all procedures required by 40 CFR 300.425(e),
Deletion from the NPL. EPA consulted with the State of California prior
to developing this Notice. EPA determined that the responsible party
has implemented all appropriate response actions required and that no
further response action for the surface soil portion of the Site is
appropriate. EPA is publishing a notice in two major local newspapers,
The Ventura County Star and the Fillmore Gazette, of its intent to
partially delete the Site and how to submit comments. EPA placed copies
of documents supporting the proposed partial deletion in the Site
information repositories; these documents are available for public
inspection and copying.
    The implemented soil remedy achieved the degree of cleanup and
protection specified in the ROD Amendment for the surface soil portion
of the Site. The selected remedial action objectives and associated
cleanup levels for the surface soil are consistent with agency policy
and guidance. Based on information currently available to EPA, no
further Superfund response in the area proposed for deletion is needed
to protect human health and the environment.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626,
77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p.306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3
CFR, 1991 Comp., p.351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp.,
p. 193.

    Dated: December 18, 2017.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017-27794 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 122 (Friday, June 24, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 41285]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14297]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 271 and 272

[EPA-R08-RCRA-2016-0131; FRL-9947-03-Region 8]

South Dakota: Proposed Authorization of State Hazardous Waste
Management Program Revisions and Incorporation by Reference

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
grant authorization to the State of South Dakota for the changes to its
hazardous waste program under the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended,
commonly referred to as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). The EPA has determined that these changes satisfy all
requirements needed to qualify for final authorization, and is
authorizing the state's changes through a direct final action. In
addition, the EPA is proposing to codify in the regulations entitled
``Approved State Hazardous Waste Management Programs,'' South Dakota's
authorized hazardous waste program. The EPA will incorporate by
reference into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) those provisions
of the State regulations that are authorized and that the EPA will
enforce under RCRA.

DATES: Send written comments by July 25, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
RCRA-2016-0131 by mail to Christina Cosentini, Resource Conservation
and Recovery Program, EPA Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Mail Code: 8P-
R, Denver, Colorado 80202. You may also submit comments electronically
or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions
in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located in the Rules
section of this Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christina Cosentini at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of
this Federal Register, the EPA is authorizing changes to the South
Dakota program, in addition to codifying and incorporating by reference
the State's hazardous waste program as a direct final rule. The EPA did
not make a proposal prior to the direct final rule because we believe
these actions are not controversial and do not expect comments that
oppose them. We have explained the reasons for this authorization and
incorporation by reference in the preamble to the direct final rule.
    Unless the EPA receives written comments that oppose the
authorization and incorporation by reference during the comment period,
the direct final rule will become effective on the date it establishes,
and we will not take further action on this proposal. If we get
comments that oppose the authorization, we will withdraw the direct
final rule and it will not take immediate effect. We will then respond
to public comments in a later final rule based on this proposal. You
may not have another opportunity for comment. If you want to comment on
this action, you must do so at this time.

    Dated: May 11, 2016.
Shaun L. McGrath,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2016-14297 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 92 (Thursday, May 12, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 29560]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11225]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2651-049]

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

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Recreation Plan Amendment.
    b. Project No: 2651-049.
    c. Date Filed: April 18, 2016.
    d. Applicant: Indiana Michigan Power Company.
    e. Name of Project: Elkhart Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the St. Joseph River in the
City of Elkhart and Elkhart County, Indiana.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Ms. Elizabeth Parcell, Process Supervisor
Senior, Indiana Michigan Power Company, 40 Franklin Road SW., Roanoke,
VA 24011,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Mr. Kevin Anderson,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: June 6, 2016.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's
eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without
prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact
information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll
free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please
send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any
filing should include docket number P-2651-049.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Request: The licensee proposes to revise the
project's recreation plan to incorporate a modification made in 2015 to
the canoe portage take-out. Specifically, the licensee, with assistance
from the City of Elkhart, constructed a concrete boat loading/unloading
area within the right-of-way of Beardsley Avenue that enables the take-
out to function better as an independent boat launch. Aside from the
new loading/unloading area, other aspects of the current recreation
plan would remain the same.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to
be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from
the applicant.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214, respectively. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all
capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO
INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis. Any filing made by an intervenor must be accompanied
by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared
by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR
385.2010.

    Dated: May 6, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-11225 Filed 5-11-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 126 (Monday, July 1, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31206-31208]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13936]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2018-0789; FRL-9995-71-Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; Massachusetts; Boston Metropolitan Area,
Lowell, Springfield, Waltham, and Worcester Second 10-Year Carbon
Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. This revision includes the second 10-year limited
maintenance plan (LMP) for Carbon Monoxide (CO) for the Boston
Metropolitan Area, as well as for the cities of Lowell, Springfield,
Waltham, and Worcester. This LMP addresses maintenance of the CO
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for a second 10-year
period beyond the original re-designation to attainment. This action is
being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This rule is effective on July 31, 2019.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2018-0789. All documents in the docket
are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed
in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
Region 1 Regional Office, Air and Radiation Division, 5 Post Office
Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible,
you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ariel Garcia, Air Quality Branch, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1 Regional Office, 5 Post
Office Square, Suite 100 (mail code: 05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912,
telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever

``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background and Purpose
II. Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On May 16, 2019 (84 FR 22087), EPA published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The NPRM
proposed approval of a SIP revision consisting of the second 10-year
limited maintenance plan (LMP) for Carbon Monoxide (CO) for the Boston
Metropolitan Area, as well as for the cities of Lowell, Springfield,
Waltham, and Worcester. The formal SIP revision was submitted by
Massachusetts on February 9, 2018.
    Other specific requirements for a second maintenance plan covering
a second 10-year maintenance period, the utilization of the LMP option,
and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPRM
and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the
NPRM.

II. Final Action

    EPA is approving Massachusetts' second 10-year LMP for CO, for the
Boston Metropolitan area, Lowell, Springfield, Waltham, and Worcester,
as a revision to the Massachusetts SIP. EPA is also approving
Massachusetts' alternative CO monitoring strategy for the Springfield
area. EPA's approval of this LMP satisfies the CAA section 175A
requirements for the second 10-year period in the aforementioned CO
maintenance areas.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory
action because this action is not significant under Executive Order
12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit byAugust 30, 2019. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: June 21, 2019.
Deborah Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.

    Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart W--Massachusetts

0
2. In Sec.  52.1120, in paragraph (e), amend the table by adding an
entry entitled ``Carbon Monoxide 2nd 10-Year Limited Maintenance Plan''
at the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1120   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                          Massachusetts Non Regulatory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Applicable           State
    Name of non regulatory SIP        geographic or     submittal date/  EPA approved date       Explanations
            provision               nonattainment area  effective date          \3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Carbon Monoxide 2nd 10-Year        Boston Metropolitan        2/9/2018  7/1/2019 [Insert
 Limited Maintenance Plan.          Area, Lowell,                        Federal Register
                                    Springfield,                         citation].
                                    Waltham, and
                                    Worcester.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ To determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal
  Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.

[FR Doc. 2019-13936 Filed 6-28-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 18, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 242)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 67124-67129]
[DOCID:fr18de09-15]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0005; FRL-8797-9]

Tribenuron methyl; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
tribenuron methyl and its metabolites and degradates in or on grain,
aspirated fractions; soybean, forage; soybean, hay; and soybean, hulls;
and revises existing tolerances for residues for tribenuron methyl and
its metabolites and degradates in or on corn, field, forage; corn,
field, grain; corn, field, stover; and soybean, seed. E.I. du Pont de
Nemours and Company requested these tolerances under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective December 18, 2009. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before February 16, 2010,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0005. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

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

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document?

    In addition to accessing electronically available documents at
http://www.regulations.gov, you may access this Federal Register
document electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal
Register'' listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access
a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations
at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR cite
at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr. To access the OPPTS Harmonized Test
Guidelines referenced in this document, go directly to the guidelines
at http://www.epa.gov/oppts and select ``Test Methods & Guidelines'' on
the left side navigation menu.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file
an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0005 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be
mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk as required by 40 CFR part 178
on or before February 16, 2010.
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit this copy, identified by docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0005, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Petition for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of April 8, 2009 (74 FR 15971) (FRL-8407-
4), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of pesticide petitions (PP
8F7432 and PP 8F7441) by E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Laurel
Run Plaza, P.O. Box 80038, Wilmington, DE 19880-0038. The petitions
requested that 40 CFR 180.451 be amended by establishing tolerances for
residues of the herbicide tribenuron methyl, methyl-2-[[[[N-(4-methoxy-
6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl) methylamino] carbonyl] amino] sulfonyl]
benzoate, (in PP 8F7441) in or on corn, field, grain at 0.01 parts per
million (ppm); corn, field, forage at 0.2 ppm; corn, field, stover at
1.1 ppm; and corn, aspirated grain fractions at 3.55 ppm; and (in PP
8F7432) in or on soybean, seed at 0.01 ppm; soybean, forage at 0.06
ppm; soybean, hulls at 0.04 ppm; soybean, aspirated grain fractions at
3.46 ppm; and soybean, hay at 0.25 ppm. That notice referenced a
summary of the petitions prepared by E.I. du Pont de Nemours and
Company, the registrant, which is available to the public in the
docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in
response to the notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petitions, EPA has
increased the proposed tolerances on soybean hay and forage, decreased
the proposed tolerance on field corn forage, and determined that a
tolerance should be established for ``grain, aspirated fractions'', in
lieu of the proposed tolerances on ``soybean, aspirated grain
fractions'' and ``corn, field, aspirated grain fractions.'' EPA has
also revised the tribenuron methyl tolerance expression for all
existing and new tolerances. The reasons for these changes are
explained in Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors
specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to
make a determination on aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for
tolerances for residues of tribenuron methyl and its metabolites and
degradates on corn, field, forage at 0.15 ppm; corn, field, grain at
0.01 ppm; corn, field, stover at 1.1 ppm; grain, aspirated fractions at
1.5 ppm; soybean, forage at 0.07 ppm; soybean, hay at 0.35 ppm;
soybean, hulls at 0.04 ppm and soybean, seed at 0.01 ppm. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing
tolerances follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    Tribenuron methyl has low to moderate acute toxicity via the oral,
inhalation, and dermal routes of exposure. It is not a dermal irritant,
but was found to be mildly irritating to the eye and is a skin
sensitizer.
    Repeated dose oral toxicity studies in rats and dogs resulted
primarily in decreased body weights and body weight gains accompanied
by decreased food consumption. There is no evidence that tribenuron
methyl targets specific organs following repeated oral exposure. There
is no evidence that tribenuron methyl is neurotoxic. Although increased
spleen weights were observed in the 90-day oral toxicity study in rats
and decreased spleen weights were observed in the reproduction study
(both potential indications of immunotoxicity), these effects occurred
in the absence of other potential indicators of immunotoxicity.
    EPA has classified tribenuron methyl as a Group C (possible human)
carcinogen, based on statistically significant increases in mammary
gland adenocarcinomas in female rats at the highest dose tested (HDT)
(76 milligram/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day)). There was no evidence of
carcinogenicity observed in the mouse carcinogenicity study.
Quantitative cancer risk assessment is not recommended for tribenuron
methyl because the tumors observed in rats occurred at a dose resulting
in excessive toxicity (i.e., greater than the maximum tolerated dose),
there was no evidence of genotoxicity, and structurally similar
compounds are not known to be carcinogenic in rats and mice. The no
observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) (0.8 mg/kg/day) selected for
chronic risk assessment is considered to be protective of any potential
cancer risk.
    Developmental and reproductive toxicity studies indicated no
increased susceptibility of offspring to tribenuron methyl. At the
lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) of 125 mg/kg/day in the
developmental study in rats, decreased fetal weights were observed in
the presence of decreased maternal body weights. At the HDT (500 mg/kg/
day), increased resorptions, fetal deaths, and incomplete ossifications
were observed, but these effects may be secondary to maternal toxicity.
In the developmental rabbit study, maternal toxicity consisted of
decreased food consumption and abortions at the HDT. At this same dose
there was a 10% decrease in fetal body weights (not statistically
significant). Since the number of dead fetuses and resorptions per
litter were not correlated with the dosing level, the increased
incidence of abortions in the high dose group is likely due to maternal
toxicity. In a two-generation reproduction study, reproductive effects
of tribenuron methyl were limited to decreased body weight gain during
lactation. There was no evidence of increased susceptibility, as
parental, offspring and reproduction

NOAELs and LOAELs were established at similar levels.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by tribenuron methyl as well as the NOAEL and
the LOAEL from the toxicity studies can be found at http://
www.regulations.gov in the document ``Tribenuron methyl. Human Health
Risk Assessment for the Proposed Use of Tribenuron methyl on Corn and
Soybean,'' page 33 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0005.

B. Toxicological Endpoints

    For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, a toxicological point of departure (POD) is
identified as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk
assessment. The POD may be defined as the highest dose at which no
adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) in the toxicology study
identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment. However, if a
NOAEL cannot be determined, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of
concern are identified (the LOAEL) or a Benchmark Dose (BMD) approach
is sometimes used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors (UFs)
are used in conjunction with the POD to take into account uncertainties
inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and
in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population
as well as other unknowns. Safety is assessed for acute and chronic
dietary risks by comparing aggregate food and water exposure to the
pesticide to the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic
population adjusted dose (cPAD). The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. Aggregate short-term,
intermediate-term, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing
food, water, and residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the
margin of exposure (MOE) called for by the product of all applicable
UFs is not exceeded. This latter value is referred to as the Level of
Concern (LOC).
    For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of
exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates
risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect
greater than that expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/
pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for tribenuron methyl used
for human risk assessment can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in
the document ``Tribenuron methyl. Human Health Risk Assessment for the
Proposed Use of Tribenuron methyl on Corn and Soybean,'' page 20 in
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0005.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to tribenuron methyl, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing tribenuron methyl
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.451. EPA assessed dietary exposures from
tribenuron methyl in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. No such effects were
identified in the toxicological studies for tribenuron methyl;
therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is
unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the U.S Department
of Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996 and 1998 Continuing Surveys of Food
Intakes by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA
assumed that residues are present in all commodities at the tolerance
level and that 100% of commodities are treated with tribenuron methyl.
DEEMTM 7.81 default concentration factors were used to
estimate residues of tribenuron methyl in processed commodities.
    iii. Cancer. EPA classified tribenuron methyl as a Group C,
possible human, carcinogen and determined that the chronic dietary risk
assessment based on the cPAD would be protective of any potential
cancer effects. Therefore, a separate exposure assessment to evaluate
cancer risk is unnecessary. The weight of the evidence supporting this
determination is discussed in Unit III.A.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue or PCT information in the dietary
assessment for tribenuron methyl. Tolerance level residues and 100 PCT
were assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for tribenuron methyl in drinking water. These simulation
models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/
transport characteristics of tribenuron methyl. Further information
regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure
assessment can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/
index.htm.
    Based on the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) and
Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the
Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations (EDWCs) of tribenuron methyl
for acute exposures are estimated to be 4.1 parts per billion (ppb) for
surface water and 6.8 ppb for ground water. For chronic exposures for
non-cancer assessments EDWCs are estimated to be 2.7 ppb for surface
water and 6.8 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the only dietary exposure scenario for which a
toxicological endpoint of concern was identified, the water
concentration value of 6.8 ppb was used to assess the contribution to
drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Tribenuron methyl is
not registered for any specific use patterns that would result in
residential exposure.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found tribenuron methyl to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and tribenuron methyl does not
appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For
the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
tribenuron methyl does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with
other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine
which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at http://
www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of

safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to
account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the
database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on
reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for
infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly
referred to as the FQPA SF. In applying this provision, EPA either
retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety
factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a
different factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The prenatal and postnatal
toxicity database for tribenuron methyl includes guideline rat and
rabbit developmental toxicity studies and a two-generation reproduction
toxicity study in rats. As discussed in Unit III.A., there is no
quantitative or qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility of
fetuses or offspring in any of these studies.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for tribenuron methyl is adequate to
assess prenatal and postnatal toxicity. In accordance with Part 158
Toxicology Data requirements, an immunotoxicity study (OPPTS Test
Guideline 870.7800) and acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies
(OPPTS Test Guideline 870.6200) are required for tribenuron methyl. In
the absence of specific immunotoxicity and neurotoxicity studies, EPA
has evaluated the available tribenuron methyl toxicity data to
determine whether an additional database uncertainty factor is needed
to account for the lack of these studies.
    a. Immunotoxicity: Increased spleen weights were observed in the
90-day oral toxicity study in rats at 118/135 (Male/Female) mg/kg/day,
and decreased absolute spleen weights were observed in the offspring in
the reproduction study at 250 mg/kg/day. These effects occurred in the
absence of other potential indicators of immunotoxicity, including
histopathology and alterations in hematology, and there were no
accompanying effects on thymus weights. Finally, the dose selected for
chronic risk assessment (cPAD of 0.008 mg/kg/day from the chronic dog
toxicity study) is protective of any potential immunotoxicity (i.e.,
decreased spleen weights) from exposure to tribenuron methyl.
Therefore, an additional UF is not needed to account for the lack of an
immunotoxicity study.
    b. Neurotoxicity: No evidence of neurotoxicity or neuropathology
was observed in any of the toxicology studies for tribenuron methyl.
Therefore, EPA has concluded that there is no need for a developmental
neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for the lack of
specific acute/subchronic neurotoxicity studies.
    ii. There is no evidence that tribenuron methyl results in
increased susceptibility in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study.
    iii. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed
assuming 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground water and surface water modeling
used to assess exposure to tribenuron methyl in drinking water.
Residential exposure to tribenuron methyl is not expected. These
assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by
tribenuron methyl.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic pesticide exposures are
safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the aPAD and cPAD.
The aPAD and cPAD represent the highest safe exposures, taking into
account all appropriate SFs. EPA calculates the aPAD and cPAD by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the probability of additional cancer cases given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-term, intermediate-term, and
chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate
food, water, and residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the
margin of exposure (MOE) called for by the product of all applicable
UFs is not exceeded.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account exposure estimates from acute dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
tribenuron methyl is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
tribenuron methyl from food and water will utilize less than 4% of the
cPAD for the general U.S. population and less than 8% of the cPAD for
infants less than 1 year old, the population group receiving the
greatest exposure. There are no residential uses for tribenuron methyl.
    3. Short-term/intermediate-term risk. Short-term/intermediate term
aggregate exposure takes into account short-term/intermediate-term
residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background exposure level). Tribenuron methyl is
not registered for any use patterns that would result in residential
exposure. Therefore, the short-term/intermediate-term aggregate risk is
the sum of the risk from exposure to tribenuron methyl through food and
water and will not be greater than the chronic aggregate risk.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. As explained in Unit
III.A. risk assessments based on the endpoint selected for chronic risk
assessment are considered to be protective of any potential
carcinogenic risk from exposure to tribenuron methyl. Based on the
results of the chronic risk assessment discussed above in Unit III.E.2.
EPA concludes that tribenuron methyl is not expected to pose a cancer
risk.
    5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to tribenuron methyl residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (liquid chromatography with tandem
mass-spectrometric detection (LC/MS/MS) method, DuPont Method 13412
(Revision 1)) is available to enforce the tolerance expression. The
method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch,
Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    There are no CODEX, Canadian or Mexican maximum residue limits
(MRLs) established on the commodities associated with these petitions.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    EPA has increased the proposed tolerance on soybean, hay from 0.25
ppm to 0.35 ppm; increased the tolerance on soybean, forage from 0.06
ppm to 0.07 ppm; and decreased the proposed tolerance on corn, field,
forage from 0.2 ppm to 0.15 ppm. EPA revised these tolerance levels
based on analyses of the residue field trial data using the

Agency's Tolerance Spreadsheet in accordance with the Agency's Guidance
for Setting Pesticide Tolerances Based on Field Trial Data. EPA also
determined that a single tolerance at 1.5 ppm should be established for
``grain, aspirated fractions'', in lieu of the separately proposed
tolerances of 3.46 ppm on ``soybean, aspirated grain fractions'' and
3.55 ppm on ``corn, field, aspirated grain fractions.'' The tolerance
on grain, aspirated fractions (AGF) will cover residues on aspirated
fractions of both corn and soybean. The tolerance level of 1.5 ppm was
determined based on data for soybean indicating a concentration factor
of 150x for AGF and the highest average field trial (HAFT) residue for
of 0.01 ppm. Residues in corn AGF are expected to be lower, based on a
concentration factor of only 13x and a HAFT of 0.01 ppm.
    Finally, EPA has revised the tribenuron methyl tolerance expression
for all existing and new commodities to clarify the chemical moieties
that are covered by the tolerances and specify how compliance with the
tolerances is to be measured. The revised tolerance expression makes
clear that the tolerances cover ``residues of tribenuron methyl and its
metabolites and degradates,'' but that compliance with the tolerance
levels will be determined by measuring only ``tribenuron methyl,
methyl-2-[[[[N-(4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl) methylamino]
carbonyl] amino] sulfonyl] benzoate, in or on the commodities.
    EPA has determined that it is reasonable to make this change final
without prior proposal and opportunity for comment, because public
comment is not necessary, in that the change has no substantive effect
on the tolerance, but rather is merely intended to clarify the existing
tolerance expression.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of tribenuron
methyl and its metabolites and degradates in or on corn, field, forage
at 0.15 ppm; corn, field, grain at 0.01 ppm; corn, field, stover at 1.1
ppm; grain, aspirated fractions at 1.5 ppm; soybean, forage at 0.07
ppm; soybean, hay at 0.35 ppm; soybean, hulls at 0.04 ppm and soybean,
seed at 0.01 ppm. Compliance with these tolerances will be determined
by measuring only tribenuron methyl, methyl-2-[[[[N-(4-methoxy-6-
methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl) methylamino] carbonyl] amino] sulfonyl]
benzoate, in or on the commodities.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

VII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: December 8, 2009.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Section 180.451 is amended by revising the introductory text in
paragraph (a); revising the existing tolerances in paragraph (a) for
corn, field, forage; corn, field, grain; corn, field, stover; and
soybean, seed; and alphabetically adding the commodities grain,
aspirated fractions; soybean, forage; soybean, hay; and soybean, hulls
to the table in paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  180.451   Tribenuron methyl; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of the
herbicide tribenuron methyl and its metabolites and degradates in or on
the commodities in the following table. Compliance with the tolerance
levels specified below is to be determined by measuring only tribenuron
methyl,

methyl-2-[[[[N-(4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl) methylamino]
carbonyl] amino] sulfonyl] benzoate, in or on the following
commodities:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Commodity                                            Parts per million
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    * * * * *
 Corn, field, forage                                                                                0.15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Corn, field, grain                                                                                0.01
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corn, field, stover                                                                                1.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    * * * * *
Grain, aspirated fractions                                                                                1.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    * * * * *
Soybean, forage                                                                                0.07
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soybean, hay                                                                                0.35
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soybean, hulls                                                                                0.04
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soybean, seed                                                                                0.01
                                                    * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. E9-30035 Filed 12-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:I respectfully request that the 75 day comment period be extended to a minimum of 180 days so that there is sufficient time for all interested and concerned parties to educate themselves on the voluminous amount of materials contained in the pending regulations concerning ecigarettes.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely yours, Jane Eiselen