[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 39 (Monday, February 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10940-10941]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4214]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Notice of Delays in Processing of Special Permits Applications

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: List of Applications Delayed more than 180 days.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5117(c),
PHMSA is publishing the following list of special permit applications
that have been in process for 180 days or more. The reason(s) for delay
and the expected completion date for action on each application is
provided in association with each identified application.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Delmer F. Billings, Director, Office
of Hazardous Materials Special Permits and Approvals, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Key to ``Reason for Delay''

    1. Awaiting additional information from applicant.
    2. Extensive public comment under review.
    3. Application is technically complex and is of significant impact
or precedent-setting and requires extensive analysis.
    4. Staff review delayed by other priority issues or volume of
special permit applications.

Meaning of Application Number Suffixes

    N--New application.
    M--Modification request.
    PM--Party to application with modification request.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 18, 2011.
Donald Burger,
Chief, Special Permits and Approvals Branch.

                                         Modification to Special Permits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Reason for    Estimated date of
              Application No.                           Applicant                   delay          completion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14167-M...................................  Trinityrail, Dallas, TX..........               4         03-31-2011
6293-M....................................  ATK Space Systems, Inc., (Former                4         03-31-2011
                                             Grantee: ATK Thiokol, Inc.),
                                             Corine, UT.
14741-M...................................  Weatherford International, Fort                 4         03-31-2011
                                             Worth, TX.
14650-M...................................  Air Transport International,                    4         03-31-2011
                                             L.L.C., Little Rock, AR.
14926-M...................................  Lynden Air Cargo, Anchorage, AK..               4         11-30-2010
8826-M....................................  Phoenix Air Group, Inc.,                        4         03-31-2011
                                             Cartersville, GA.
10869-M...................................  Norris Cylinder Company,                        4         03-31-2011
                                             Longview, TX.
10049-M...................................  Martin Transport, Inc., Kilgore,                4         01-31-2011
                                             TX.
8815-M....................................  Florex Explosives, Inc., Crystal                4         01-31-2011
                                             River, FL.
14447-M...................................  SNF Holding Company, Riceboro, GA               4         01-31-2011
12561-M...................................  Rhodia, Inc., Cranbury, NJ.......               4         01-31-2011
14617-M...................................  Western International Gas &                     4         01-31-2011
                                             Cylinders, Inc., Bellville, TX.
3121-M....................................  Department of Defense, Scott Air                4         02-15-2011
                                             Force Base, IL.
14763-M...................................  Weatherford International, Forth                4         02-15-2011
                                             Worth, TX.
14909-M...................................  Lake Clark Air, Inc., Port                      4         03-31-2011
                                             Alsworth, AK.
14926-M...................................  Lynden Air Cargo, Anchorage, AK..               4         03-31-2011
14860-M...................................  Alaska Airlines, Seattle, WA.....               4         01-31-2011
10656-M...................................  The Conference of Radiation                     4         04-30-2011
                                             Control Program Directors, Inc.,
                                             Frankfort, KY.

11406-M...................................  Conference of Radiation Control                 4         04-30-2011
                                             Program Directors, Inc.,
                                             Frankfort, KY.
14854-M...................................  Airgas, Inc., Radnor, PA.........               4         03-31-2011
12629-M...................................  TEA Technologies, Inc., Amarillo,               4         04-30-2011
                                             TX.
10922-M...................................  FIBA Technologies, Inc.,                        4         12-31-2010
                                             Millbury, MA.
13736-M...................................  ConocoPhillips, Anchorage, AK....               4         03-31-2011
14810-N...................................  Olin Corporation, Chlor Alkai                   4         03-31-2011
                                             Products Division, Cleveland, TN.
14813-N...................................  Organ Recovery Systems, Des                     4         03-31-2011
                                             Plaines, IL.
14835-N...................................  The Reusable Industrial Packaging               4         03-31-2011
                                             Assoc., Washington, DC.
14839-N...................................  Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc., Basking                 3         11-30-2010
                                             Ridge, NJ.
14868-N...................................  Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,                          4         03-31-2011
                                             Bentonville, AR.
14878-N...................................  Humboldt County Waste Management                4         03-31-2011
                                             Authority, Eureka, CA.
14872-N...................................  Arkema, Inc., Philadelphia, PA...               4         03-31-2011
14929-N...................................  Alaska Island Air, Inc., Togiak,                4         11-30-2010
                                             AK.
14945-N...................................  Vulcan Construction Materials LP                4         03-31-2011
                                             SE d/b/a Vulcan Materials
                                             Company, Atlanta, GA.
14951-N...................................  Lincoln Composites, Lincoln, NE..               1         11-30-2010
14960-N...................................  Cheltec, Inc., Sarasota, FL......               4         03-31-2011
14965-N...................................  JiangXi Oxygen Plant Co., Ltd.,                 4         11-30-2010
                                             Jiangxi Province.
14972-N...................................  Air Products and Chemicals,                     4         11-30-2010
                                             Allentown, PA.
14992-N...................................  VIP Transport, Inc., Corona, CA..               4         02-28-2010
14989-N...................................  Vinci-technologies...............               4         02-28-2011
15003-N...................................  Gebauer Company, Cleveland, OH...               4         02-28-2011
15028-N...................................  Roeder Cartage Company, Lima, OH.               4         02-28-2011
15031-N...................................  Euro Asia Packaging (Guangdong)                 4         02-28-2011
                                             Co., Ltd., ZhongShan, Canton.
15036-N...................................  UTLX Manufacturing, Incorporated,               4         02-28-2011
                                             Alexandria, LA.
15053-N...................................  Department of Defense, Scott Air                4         07-15-2010
                                             Force Base, IL.
15080-N...................................  Alaska Airlines, Seattle, WA.....               1         04-30-2011
15088-N...................................  Burlington Containers, Brooklyn,                3         01-31-2011
                                             NY.
15096-N...................................  NK CO., LTD, Saha-Gu, Busan......               4         01-31-2011
15125-N...................................  Essex Cryogenics of Missouri,                   4         01-31-2011
                                             Inc., *** St. Louis, MO.
15126-N...................................  Trans Aero Ltd., Cheyenne, WY....               4         01-31-2011
15132-N...................................  National Aeronautics and Space                  4         01-31-2011
                                             Administration (NASA),
                                             Washington, DC.
15233-N...................................  ExpressJet Airlines, Inc.,                      4         04-30-2011
                                             Houston, TX.
15234-N...................................  Atlantic Southeast Airlines,                    4         04-30-2011
                                             Inc., Atlanta, GA.
15237-N...................................  US Airways, Phoenix, AZ..........               4         04-30-2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2011-4214 Filed 2-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-M


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 114 (Friday, June 13, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33868-33869]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13286]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2014-0002]

Final Flood Elevation Determinations; Withdrawal

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is withdrawing
its final rule concerning the flood elevation determinations for Colfax
County, Nebraska, and Incorporated Areas.

DATE: Effective June 13, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering

Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On Friday, January 24, 2014, FEMA published
a final rulemaking at 79 FR 4095, finalizing flood elevation
determinations along one or more flooding sources in Colfax County,
Nebraska, and Incorporated Areas. FEMA recently determined that certain
administrative errors occurred which affected the statutory appeal
period for eligible communities in Colfax County and rescinded the
Letter of Final Determination issued on October 16, 2013. Therefore,
FEMA is withdrawing the final rulemaking at the above-referenced
publication. FEMA will provide additional due process for affected
communities and resolve any appeals or comments received during the
appeal period prior to finalizing the flood elevation determinations
for Colfax County, Nebraska and Incorporated Areas.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: May 9, 2014.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2014-13286 Filed 6-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 75 (Thursday, April 18, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16326-16327]
[FR Doc No: 2019-07792]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA- FMCSA-2013-0108; FMCSA-2014-0382; FMCSA-2015-0322;
FMCSA-2015-0323; FMCSA-2016-0008]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for nine
individuals from the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV)
drivers have ``no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of
epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of
consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.'' The exemptions
enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are
taking anti-seizure medication to continue to operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.

DATES: The exemptions were applicable on December 21, 2018. The
exemptions expire on December 21, 2020.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Viewing Documents and Comments

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
Insert the docket number, FMCSA-2013-0108; FMCSA-2014-0382; FMCSA-2015-
0322; FMCSA-2015-0323; FMCSA-2016-0008, in the keyword box, and click
``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket Folder'' button and choose
the document to review. If you do not have access to the internet, you
may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility
in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

B. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On February 19, 2019, FMCSA published a notice announcing its
decision to renew exemptions for nine individuals from the epilepsy and
seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) to operate a CMV
in interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (84 FR
4893). The public comment period ended on March 21, 2019, and no
comments were received.
    As stated in the previous notice, FMCSA has evaluated the
eligibility of these applicants and determined that renewing these
exemptions would achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater
than, the level that would be achieved by complying with the current
regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8).
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which
is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to
control a CMV.
    In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory
criteria to assist Medical Examiners in determining whether drivers
with certain medical conditions are qualified to operate a CMV in
interstate commerce. [49 CFR part 391, APPENDIX A TO PART 391--MEDICAL
ADVISORY CRITERIA, section H. Epilepsy: Sec.  391.41(b)(8), paragraphs
3, 4, and 5.]

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

IV. Conclusion

    Based on its evaluation of the nine renewal exemption applications,
FMCSA announces its decision to exempt the following drivers from the
epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8).

    As of December 21, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following nine individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure
disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (84 FR
4893):

Stephen L. Amell (VT)
Mark W. Beery (OH)
Douglas Cantwell (TN)
Kenneth B. Elder (KY)
Ronnie D. Moody (NC)
Michael S. Shumake (VA)
Douglas J. Simms, Jr. (NC)
Shaen C. Smith (MN)
Tara VanHorne (PA)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2013-0108; FMCSA-
2014-0382; FMCSA-2015-0322; FMCSA-2015-0323; FMCSA-2016-0008. Their
exemptions are applicable as of December 21, 2018, and will expire on
December 21, 2020.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315, each exemption will be valid
for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person
fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the
exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained
prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not
be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and
31315.

     Issued on: April 11, 2019.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-07792 Filed 4-17-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: April 15, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 72)]
[Notices]
[Page 19641-19643]
[DOCID:fr15ap10-44]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PF10-5-000]

Empire Pipeline, Inc.; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Planned Tioga County Extension
Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of
Public Scoping Meeting

April 7, 2010.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Tioga County Extension
Project, involving construction and operation of facilities by Empire
Pipeline, Inc. (Empire) in Tioga County, Pennsylvania and Steuben and
Ontario Counties, New York. This EA will be used by the Commission in
its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the
public convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies on the project. Your input will help the Commission staff
determine what issues need to be evaluated in the EA. Please note that
the scoping period will close on May 7, 2010.
    Comments may be submitted in written form or verbally. Further
details on how to submit written comments are provided in the Public
Participation section of this notice. In lieu of or in addition to
sending written comments, we invite you to attend the public scoping
meetings scheduled as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Date and time                          Location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 27, 2010, 7 p.m. local time.........  Radisson Hotel--Corning, 125
                                             Denison Parkway East,
                                             Corning, New York 14830.
<PHONE_NUMBER>.
April 28, 2010, 7 p.m. local time.........  Hampton Inn, 7637 New York
                                             State Rte 96, Victor, New
                                             York 14564.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives are asked to notify their constituents of this planned
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted
by a pipeline company representative about the acquisition of an
easement to construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities.
The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement.
However, if the project is approved by the Commission, that approval
conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement
negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could
initiate condemnation proceedings in accordance with State law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' is available for
viewing on the FERC Web site (http://www.ferc.gov). This fact sheet
addresses a number of typically-asked questions, including the use of
eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.

Summary of the Planned Project

    Empire plans to construct and operate approximately 16 miles of 24-
inch-diameter pipeline and replace approximately 1.3 miles of existing
24-inch-diameter pipeline. According to Empire, its project would
enable Empire to provide firm transportation services requested by
producers connecting extensive Marcellus Shale production along the
proposed pipeline corridor. The Tioga County Extension Project would
provide about 350,000 dekatherms per day of capacity to various market
areas in New York, New England, and eastern Canada along the Millenium
Pipeline, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company 200 Line, TransCanada
Pipeline, and Empire's existing systems.
    The Tioga County Extension Project would consist of the following
facilities:
     Construction of 16 miles of 24-inch-diameter pipeline from
Tioga County, Pennsylvania to Steuben County, New York;
     Replacement of 1.3 miles of existing 24-inch-diameter
pipeline in Victor, Ontario County, New York;
     Construction of a new interconnect with Tennessee Gas
Pipeline Company in the Town of Canandaigua, Ontario County, New York;
and
     Miscellaneous modifications at existing measurement and
compressor stations.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix
1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to
all those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
http://www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the planned facilities would disturb about 223
acres of land for the aboveground facilities and the pipeline.
Following construction, about 113 acres would be maintained for
permanent operation of the project's facilities; the remaining acreage
would be restored and allowed to revert to former uses. About 31
percent of the planned pipeline route parallels an existing pipeline
right-of-way.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a

Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
\2\ to discover and address concerns the public may have about
proposals. This process is referred to as scoping. The main goal of the
scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public
comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. All comments
received will be considered during the preparation of the EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``We'', ``us'', and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the planned project under these
general headings:
     Geology and soils;
     Land use;
     Water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
     Cultural resources;
     Vegetation and wildlife;
     Air quality and noise; and
     Endangered and threatened species.
    We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the planned project
or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen
or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    Although no formal application has been filed, we have already
initiated our NEPA review under the Commission's pre-filing process.
The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement
of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before an
application is filed with the FERC. As part of our pre-filing review,
we have begun to contact some Federal and State agencies to discuss
their involvement in the scoping process and the preparation of the EA.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be presented in the EA.
The EA will be placed in the public record and, depending on the
comments received during the scoping process, may be published and
distributed to the public. A comment period will be allotted if the EA
is published for review. We will consider all comments on the EA before
we make our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure your comments
are considered, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public
Participation section below.
    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction and/or
special expertise with respect to environmental issues to formally
cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA. These agencies may
choose to participate once they have evaluated the proposal relative to
their responsibilities. Agencies that would like to request cooperating
agency status should follow the instructions for filing comments
provided under the Public Participation section of this notice.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on
the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and
measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific
your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so
that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before May 7, 2010.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has expert eFiling staff available to assist you
at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the Quick
Comment feature, which is located at http://www.ferc.gov under the link
called Documents and Filings. A Quick Comment is an easy method for
interested persons to submit text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You may file your comments electronically by using the
``eFiling'' feature that is listed under the Documents and Filings
link. eFiling involves preparing your submission in the same manner as
you would if filing on paper, and then saving the file on your
computer's hard drive. You will attach that file to your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on the links
called Sign up or eRegister. You will be asked to select the type of
filing you are making. A comment on a particular project is considered
a ``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You may file a paper copy of your comments at the following
address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes Federal, State, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related
to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and
government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the
planned project.
    If the EA is published for distribution, copies will be sent to the
environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would
prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD
version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please
return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).

Becoming an Intervenor

    Once Empire files its application with the Commission, you may want
to become an ``intervenor'', which is an official party to the
Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the
process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard
by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling.
An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a
request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are
included in the User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the
Commission's Web site. Please note that you may not request intervenor
status at this time. You must wait until a formal application for the
project is filed with the Commission.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on
the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field
(i.e., PF10-5). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range.
For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which

allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in
specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend
researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/
EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-8591 Filed 4-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 47 (Thursday, March 10, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13665-13666]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05035]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0172; Airspace Docket No. 22-AAL-3]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Revocation of Colored Federal Airways Amber 5 (A-5) and
Blue 4 (B-4); Bettles, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to revoke Colored Federal airways Amber 5
(A-5) and Blue 4 (B-4) in the vicinity of Bettles, AK due to the
pending decommissioning of Evansville, AK, (EAV) Non-directional Beacon
(NDB).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 25, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone:
(800) 647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2022-0172; Airspace Docket No. 22-AAL-3 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is also available for inspection at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of FAA Order JO 7400.11F at NARA, email:
[email protected] or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher McMullin, Rules and
Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, part A, subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it would modify the route structure as necessary to
preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National
Airspace System (NAS).

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2022-0172; Airspace Docket No. 22-AAL-3) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to FAA Docket No. FAA-2022-0172; Airspace Docket No. 22-AAL-3.'' The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified comment
closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the comment
closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRM

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Operations Support Group, Western
Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA 98198.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective
September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as
listed

in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

Background

    The aviation industry/users have indicated a desire for the FAA to
transition the Alaskan en route navigation structure away from the
dependency on NDBs. The advances in technology have allowed for
alternate navigation methods to support decommissioning of high cost
ground navigation equipment. The FAA has included EAV on their schedule
to be decommissioned effective February 23, 2023. A non-rulemaking
study was conducted in accordance with FAA Order JO 7400.2, Procedures
for Handling Airspace Matters. As a result, the FAA received no
objections to its removal.
    Colored Federal airways A-5 and B-4 are dependent upon EAV and will
result in the airways being unusable once the decommissioning occurs.
The FAA is proposing to revoke A-5 and B-4 as a result. The revocation
of A-5 is mitigated by United States Area Navigation (RNAV) route T-233
that currently overlays the route. To mitigate the loss of B-4, the FAA
has a planned RNAV route T-374.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to revoke
Colored Federal airways A-5 and B-4 due to the decommissioning of EAV.
    A-5: A-5 currently navigates between the Ambler, AK, NDB and the
Evansville, AK, NDB. The FAA proposes to revoke the route in its
entirety.
    B-4: B-4 currently navigates between the Utopia Creek, AK, NDB via
the Evansville, AK, NDB to the Yukon River, AK, NDB. The FAA proposes
to revoke the route in its entirety.
    Colored Federal airways are published in paragraph 6009(c) and
6009(d) of FAA Order JO 7400.11F dated August 10, 2021 and effective
September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The Colored Federal airways listed in this document would be published
subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule,
when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10,
2021, and effective September 15, 2021, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6009(c) Colored Federal Airways

* * * * *

A-5 [Remove]

* * * * *

Paragraph 6009(d) Colored Federal Airways

* * * * *

B-4 [Remove]

* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 7, 2022.
Scott M. Rosenbloom,
Manager, Airspace Rules and Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2022-05035 Filed 3-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


APPENDIX B TIER I DRINKING WATER ASSESSMENT UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES, AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES PC Code: 056502 DP BARCODE: 291286 MEMORANDUM November 12, 2003 SUBJECT: Pentachloronitrobenzene: Tier I Drinking Water EDWCs for Use in the Human Health Risk Assessment.

TO: Mohsen Sahafeyan, Chemist RRB2/ HED ( 7509C)

FROM: Cheryl A. Sutton, Ph. D. Environmental Scientist ERBIV/ EFED ( 7507C)

THRU: R. David Jones, Ph. D., Senior Agronomist ERBIV/ EFED ( 7507C)

Elizabeth Behl, Branch Chief ERBIV/ EFED ( 7507C)

This memo summarizes the Tier I estimated drinking water concentrations ( EDWC) for pentachloronitrobenzene [ PCNB; plus the degradate pentachloroaniline ( PCA), as described below] in surface water and in groundwater for use in the human health risk assessment. The EDWC's are summarized in Table 1. Because the surface water EDWC values ( as estimated by FIRST) are controlled by the solubility of PCNB ( 440

g L 1) rather than by the degradation rate, there is no difference the in EDWC whether PCA is included in the estimate or not. This may not hold if more refined assessments with PRZM and EXAMS are done. EFED used the screening model FIRST ( FQPA Index Reservoir Screening Tool) to calculate the surface water EDWC's and used the screening model SCI GROW ( Screening Concentrations in Ground Water) to calculate the groundwater EDWC. Because PCNB is a registered chemical already in use, a search for monitoring data was conducted; the results are discussed in a separate section below. Because monitoring data for PCNB are scarce and of limited value in terms of this assessment, they are presented only for their qualitative value; they were not used quantitatively in the drinking water assessment.

In response to a decision made by the MARC committee ( 27 May 2003; Final Decision), the EFED scientist was to conduct the drinking water assessment to account for the parent compound plus two PCNB degradates considered to be residues of concern, pentachloroaniline ( PCA) and pentachlorophenol ( PCP). Because PCP is a known carcinogen, it will be considered separately in 2 this assessment. Because PCP was not monitored and/ or detected in most of the submitted guideline studies, the evaluation of the compound in terms of its presence in drinking water as a result of PCNB use will be qualitative. To account for the degradate PCA, aerobic soil metabolism half lives determined for the parent compound in the guideline studies were recalculated using concentration data for the parent compound plus PCA. Because separate aqueous photolysis data were not available for PCA, and the compound was not detected in the irradiated solutions initially containing the parent compound, the photolysis half life used in the modeling was calculated using parent compound concentration data only. The lack of information on the photolysis rate of PCA comprises a small uncertainty surrounding the surface water EDWCs. For the input parameter values for soil adsorption ( K oc in SCI GROW and K d in FIRST), the reviewer used the soil adsorption coefficients determined only for the parent compound. Based on submitted data, however, the mobility of PCA is similar to that of the parent compound, in that both compounds are generally expected to adsorb to soil and organic matter and have a low leaching potential.

In general, PCNB is a persistent, volatile compound that will be immobile in most soils, but may have slight or even moderate mobility in coarser ( sandy) soils, particularly those that are low in organic matter. While PCNB is expected to be persistent in aerobic environments, it is microbially degraded more rapidly ( DT 50' s of < 30 days) in anaerobic environments. It is stable to hydrolysis and is effectively stable to photodegradation on soil, but appears ( based on two submitted studies) to photodegrade fairly rapidly in water, with half lives on the order of a few days or less. ( While evidence of aqueous photodegradation of PCNB was not found in the literature, EFED found the submitted studies acceptable and, therefore, used the half life values determined in those studies.) In field studies, the compound has been shown to dissipate more rapidly in the plots in which the pesticide was not incorporated, with a half life range of 39 57 days versus a half life range of 128 324 days for plots with incorporated PCNB. The major degradates of PCNB in the environment are PCA and pentachlorothioanisole ( PCTA); minor degradates are pentachlorothioanisole sulfoxide ( PCTASO), pentachlorothioanisole sulfone ( PCTASO 2), and pentachlorobenzene ( PCB), which is also present as an impurity along with hexachlorobenzene ( HCB). While PCP was detected in two of the submitted studies, there is not sufficient evidence ( either from the submitted data or from published literature, as discussed later in this memo) that the compound will routinely be formed from PCNB in the environment.

Table 1. Tier I EDWCs for drinking water risk assessment.

Surface water drinking water sources acute: 440 ug/ L ( ppb) 1 chronic: 440 ug/ L ( ppb)

Groundwater drinking water sources 30.6 ug/ L ( ppb) 2 1Surface water EDWC's ( acute and chronic) are based on PCNB use on turf at 32.67 lb a. i./ A/ application in two applications ( total application rate of 65.34 lb a. i./ A. Note that 440 ppb is the aqueous solubility limit of PCNB at 25 oC. 2Groundwater EDWC's are based on PCNB use on bulb crops at 213.4 lb a. i./ A/ application in a single application.

Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations For the surface water and groundwater assessments, the application rates for turf ( 2 applications of 32.67 lb a. i./ A/ application), peanuts ( 2 applications of 10 lb a. i./ A/ application), 3 cole crops ( 1 application of 30 lb a. i./ A), potatoes ( 1 application of 25 lb a. i./ A) and bulb crops ( 1 application of 213.4 lb a. i./ A) were initially used, which represent the highest annual application rates on the labels ( as presented in the Use Closure Memo for PCNB Reregistration of 1/ 23/ 03, amended 6/ 23/ 03) for soil or foliar applications of PCNB. Seed treatment usage rates were considered ( after conversion to field application rates by multiplying by the typical seeding rates for each crop; rates were obtained from Appendix V of EFED's 9/ 12/ 03 Ecological Risk Assessment for the Carboxin Reregistration Elegibility Decision), but did not result in field application levels greater than those for soil and foliar applications. The soil drench application scenario ( applicable to many crops) was modeled to determine preliminary EDWC's for such uses. While these values are reported here ( in a separate table), they are to be considered preliminary values and should not be used in the human health risk assessment at this time. Prior to a final determination of EDWC's associated with a soil drench use, it is necessary that EFED obtain additional information from the registrants regarding this use pattern. A summary of the model input parameter values used in FIRST to model soil and foliar applications is presented in Table 2. The FIRST output file is located in Attachment 1. A summary of the model input parameter values used in SCI GROW to model soil and foliar applications is presented in Table 3. The SCI GROW output file is located in Attachment 2. A table of the source data used to determine input parameter values is located in Attachment 3.

FIRST ( v1.0) is a screening level model designed to estimate the pesticide concentrations found in surface water for use in drinking water assessments. The model provides upper bound estimates of environmental concentrations ( acute and chronic) in surface water drinking water sources ( untreated) that might occur following the use of a pesticide. FIRST uses basic environmental fate data and pesticide label use and application information to estimate the EECs following the treatment of a 10 hectare field with subsequent runoff into a reservoir ( an Index Reservoir, based on Shipman City Lake in Illinois, a 13 acre lake 9 feet deep with a watershed area of 427 acres or 172.8 hectares) that undergoes two full turnovers annually. FIRST also uses a Percent Cropped Area ( PCA) factor to adjust for the area within the watershed that is planted to the modeled crop. In the model, a single runoff event occurs two days after the last application and can move a maximum of 8% of the applied pesticide into the reservoir, with the amount dependent on the degradation and adsorption of the pesticide which occurs in the field prior to the event, any incorporation of the pesticide at the time of application, and the PCA. The model also accounts for degradation and binding to sediment which may occur in the reservoir following the runoff event. Spray drift ( resulting in direct deposition of the pesticide into the reservoir or indirect loading from spray drift landing on the feeding stream) in the model is equivalent to 16% of the applied for aerial application, 6.3% for orchard air blast application, and 6.4% for other ground spray application.

SCI GROW2 is a regression based, Tier 1 screening model that provides a groundwater exposure value to be used in determining the potential risk to human health from drinking water contaminated with the pesticide. SCI GROW2 estimates likely groundwater concentrations if the pesticide is used at the maximum allowable rate in areas where groundwater is vulnerable to contamination. Characteristics of such vulnerable areas include high rainfall, rapidly permeable 4 soil, and a shallow aquifer. In most cases, a large majority of the use area will have groundwater that is less vulnerable to contamination than the areas used to derive the SCI GROW2 estimate.

EFED recommends that the acute EDWC to be used in the human health risk assessment for surface water is 440 ppb, based on the use of PCNB on turf at an application rate of 32.67 lb a. i./ A/ application for two applications with an application interval of 21 days ( total application rate of 65.3 lb a. i./ A). It is noted that for all of the aforementioned crops modeled with soil/ foliar applications ( with total maximum application rates ranging from 20 to 213.4 lb a. i./ A), the same acute EDWC's ( i. e., 440 ppb) were obtained. Note, also, that the value " 440 ppb" is the aqueous solubility limit of the parent compound at 25 oC. EFED recommends that the chronic EDWC to be used in the drinking water assessment for surface water is 440 ppb, also based on the use of PCNB on turf, as described previously. While the use of PCNB on bulb crops at an application rate of 213.4 lb a. i./ A/ application with a single application and no incorporation resulted in the same chronic EDWC for surface water of 440 ppb, the same use ( i. e., bulbs) only with incorporation to 6 inches resulted in a lower chronic EDWC of 328.6 ppb. For the purposes of comparison, EFED determined the acute and chronic surface water EDWC's for parent PCNB only ( without including PCA), using the turf application scenario. The EDWC's for parent only were 440 ppb for both acute and chronic exposures, indicating that the inclusion of PCA did not have an apparent effect on the surface water EDWC's, as they were more significantly affected by the aqueous solubility limit of the compound.

EFED recommends that the EDWC to be used in the human health risk assessment for groundwater is 30.6 ppb, based on the use of PCNB on bulb crops at an application rate of 213.4 lb a. i./ A, applied in a single application. For the purposes of comparison, EFED determined the groundwater EDWC for parent PCNB only ( without including PCA), using the bulb application scenario. The EDWC for parent only was 13.0 ppb, indicating that the inclusion of PCA did have an effect on the groundwater EDWC. 5 Table 2. FIRST ( v1.0) input parameter values and results for PCNB applied to various crops.

Parameter Value Application Rate ( lb a. i./ A) turf: 32.67 potatoes: 25 peanuts: 10 bulb crops: 213.4 cole crops: 30 Number of Applications turf: 2 potatoes: 1 peanuts: 2 bulb crops: 1 cole crops: 1 Interval between Applications ( days) turf: 21 potatoes: NA peanuts: 30 bulb crops: NA cole crops: Not Applicable ( NA)

Soil Partition Coefficient ( K d; mL/ g) 15.5 ( MRID 41648201; lowest non sand K d)

Aerobic Soil Metabolism Half life ( days) t 1/ 2 = 1555 days ( parent plus PCA) ( source data from MRID's 42911902, 41384501, 41713202, 42112801) 1 Wetted in? No Depth of Incorporation ( inches) turf: 0 potatoes: 0 peanuts: 0 bulb crops: 0; 6 cole crops: 0 Method of Application turf: ground application of granular peanuts: ground application of granular cole crops: ground spray ( broadcast) potatoes: ground spray ( broadcast) bulb crops: ground spray ( broadcast); granular Percent Cropped Area 0.87 ( all crops modeled here)

Solubility in Water ( mg/ L or ppm) 0.44 Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism Half life ( days) t 1/ 2 = 3110 days ( parent plus PCA) 1 ( source data from MRID's 42911902, 41384501, 41713202, 42112801) ( input value is two times the aerobic metabolism half life input value)

Hydrolysis Half life @ pH 7 ( days) stable Aquatic Photolysis Half life @ pH5 ( days) 1.83 FIRST Results ( Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations for surface water) Acute Concentration ( ppb): 4402 ( all crops) Chronic Concentration ( ppb): turf: 440.0 peanuts: 183.6 cole crops: 301.4 potatoes: 251.2 bulb crops: 440.0; 328.63 1For the purposes of the drinking water assessment, half lives were recalculated to account for the parent plus the degradate PCA. The aerobic soil metabolism half life used in the models represents the 90th percentile of the upper confidence bound on the mean half life for two soils. The aerobic aquatic metabolism half life was determined, in the absence of study data, by mulitiplying the aerobic soil metabolism half life model input value by two to account for the uncertainty associated with a lack of true aquatic metabolism study data. 2Note that 440 ppb, the acute concentration for all scenarios modeled, is the aqueous solubility limit for PCNB at 25 oC. 3Because FIRST does not allow directly for incorporation of a non granular formulation ( as is done for this usage), the EDWC was also determined for this crop ( 2nd value reported) using a granular formulation incorporated to 6 inches to represent the use of either a granular OR a non granular formulation ( F, WP or WSP) incorporated to 6 inches. The first value reported corresponds to a use scenario with no incorporation. 6 Table 3. SCI GROW2 input parameter values and results for PCNB applied to various crops by soil or foliar applications only.

Parameter Value Maximum Application Rate ( lb a. i./ A/ application) turf: 32.67 peanuts: 10 cole crops: 30 potatoes: 25 bulb crops: 213.4 Maximum Number of Applications per Year turf: 2 ( 21 day interval) peanuts: 2 ( 30 day interval) cole crops: 1 potatoes: 1 bulb crops: 1 Aerobic Soil Metabolism Half life ( days) t 1/ 2 = 750.5 days ( parent plus PCA; average of two values) 1 Organic Carbon Partition Coefficient ( K oc) 1588 ( lowest value of four; based on parent compound only) ( MRID 41648201)

Results ( Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations for groundwater, in ppb) turf: 9.38 peanuts: 2.87 cole crops: 4.31 potatoes: 3.59 bulb crops: 30.6 1For the purposes of the drinking water assessment, half lives were recalculated to account for the parent plus the degradate PCA, as requested by the MARC.

Preliminary EDWC's for a Soil Drench Use Scenario To allow for a determination of EDWC's for all of the potential label uses of PCNB, the soil drench application scenario ( applicable to many crops) was modeled to determine preliminary EDWC's for such uses. Although the application scenario is reported as a soil drench use on beans ( dry type), a soil drench use on multiple other crops with the same application rate ( i. e., 40.84 lb a. i./ A/ application) will yield the same values. The values are reported in Table 4 are to be considered preliminary values and should not be used in the human health risk assessment at this time. Prior to a final determination of EDWC's associated with a soil drench use, it is necessary that EFED obtain additional information from the registrants on this use pattern, particularly with regard to drenching practices, time between drench and transplant, number of treatments, estimated amount of pesticide/ formulated product not retained in the drenched container, and planting densities for transplants in the field. Please note that the preliminary values were determined with a usage scenario which included a single application of the pesticide. Although the label appears to allow for two applications ( with a 28 day interval) per growing season at this rate, it is unclear as to when the applications would occur relative to the transplant to the field. Thus, at this time, EFED utilized a single application in the use scenario. 7 Table 4. Tentative Tier I EDWCs for drinking water based on a soil drench use scenario.

Surface water drinking water sources acute: 207.3 ug/ L ( ppb) 1 chronic: 62.9 ug/ L ( ppb)

Groundwater drinking water sources 5.9 ug/ L ( ppb)

1Surface water and groundwater EDWC's are based on PCNB use on beans ( dry type) at 40.84 lb a. i./ A/ application in a single application . Note that this application rate is the same as that used for multiple other crops with a soil drench application usage. Note also that 440 ppb is the aqueous solubility limit of PCNB at 25 oC.

Monitoring Data NAWQA monitoring data are not available. Based on information contained in the USEPA's Pesticides in Ground Water Database, A Compilation of Monitoring Studies: 1971 1991, National Summary, PCNB is not found in groundwater at significant levels or frequencies. In sampling of 1708 wells, only three detections of PCNB occurred, at a range of 0.008   0.275

g/ L. Sampled wells which did not contain measurable levels of PCNB included 459 wells in California, 71 in Maine, 649 in Minnesota, 263 in Mississippi, 10 in Oregon and 188 in Texas. However, there is no related information available with regard to whether the monitoring sites corresponded with PCNB use sites or times of usage. Updated monitoring data from STORET are not available; it is no longer possible to query either the historical database ( in the Legacy Data Center) or the new database ( Modernized STORET) to obtain all detections of a specific compound.

To supplement the monitoring data available to EFED in house, a literature search was conducted to obtain published information ( generally post 1990 only) on the occurrences of PCNB and its degradates in the aquatic and terrestrial environments; information on the former are included below. PCNB and its major degradates PCA and PCTA have not been detected frequently in North America. The presence of PCA and PCTA in the environment are most likely a result of the use of PCNB. Detections of the potential degradate PCP in the environment cannot necessarily be attributed to its existence as a degradate of PCNB, but are most likely a result of its use as a pesticide ( wood preservative). Similarly, detections of the degradate ( and impurity in PCNB) PCB in the environment are most likely a result of its existence as a byproduct in the manufacture of other compounds or as a degradate of hexachlorobenzene ( HCB), and its industrial uses.

In a groundwater monitoring study of 18 wells in three counties in California ( July 1994   1995), PCNB was not detected ( California EPA, 1995). In a review of multiple studies in which sampling was conducted in surface water and/ or groundwater at golf courses, PCNB was monitored in surface water in an unspecified number of studies, but was not detected ( Cohen et al., 1999).

The degradates PCA, PCB and PCP were monitored in the Mississippi River and many of its tributaries ( Illinois, Missouri, Ohio, Arkansas, White, and Yazoo Rivers; Rostad et al., 1993). PCA was detected in the surface waters at multiple locations, at concentrations of 0.018 0.055 ng/ L. PCB was detected in the Mississippi River and two of its main tributaries, but was not likely a result of PCNB use. Its presence was attributed to its existence as a degradate of HCB, as suggested by the concentration profiles of the two compounds. PCP was not found in any of the surface water 8 samples.

In summary, monitoring data on PCNB are somewhat scarce and/ or incomplete information is available. As such, the data may be taken at face value, but are not substantial enough to quantitatively incorporate into the drinking water assessment. Additionally, the data have limitations in that it is not clear in most cases whether the water bodies/ wells monitored correspond with or were even targeted to correspond with PCNB usage in terms of location and/ or time.

Pentachlorophenol It was decided by the MARC committee that both pentachloroaniline ( PCA) and pentachlorophenol ( PCP) were both PCNB degradates of concern in water. Thus, the drinking water assessment must take into account these degradates in addition to the parent compound. The degradate PCA was accounted for by the recalculation of the parent half lives, as described previously in this memo. As aforementioned, the degradate PCP, a known carcinogen, must be considered independently of PCNB and PCA. In the submitted guideline studies, pentachlorophenol ( PCP) was detected as a degradate of PCNB in only two of the studies, an anaerobic soil metabolism study and a terrestrial field dissipation study. In the anaerobic soil metabolism study, PCP was first detected in the soil, at 0.28 ppm, immediately after the induction of anaerobic conditions at 30 days, and was 0.33 ppm at 90 days ( 60 days postflooding); in the water phase, PCP was 0.048 ppm at 60 days and 0.037 ppm at 90 days. [ It is noted that, given current EFED modeling requirements, data from aerobic and anaerobic aquatic metabolism studies are generally considered more useful than data from the anaerobic soil metabolism studies.] In the terrestrial field dissipation study in which PCP was detected, the compound was detected immediately after application at 0.022 ppm, increased with time to a maximum of 0.161 ppm by day 16, then decreased to 0.008 ppm by day 60, and was below the limit of quantification ( LOQ; 0.005 ppm) by 120 days. The lack of detection of PCP in the second submitted anaerobic soil metabolism study and the other seven field dissipation studies does not indicate that the compound wasn't present; it was simply not monitored in those studies. In a single aerobic soil metabolism study in which PCP was monitored, the compound was not detected.

As submitted data on PCP ( specifically, as a degradate of PCNB) are lacking, the treatment of PCP in EFED's Tier I assessment must be qualitative in nature. The conclusions presented here were drawn mainly from information obtained from the published literature, as cited where appropriate. Essentially, evidence that PCP is formed from PCNB during microbial degradation in soil has been found in the literature, but the weight of evidence is not substantial. EFED has indicated to SRRD that additional data on the microbial metabolism of PCNB in both aerobic and anaerobic soil/ water systems are necessary for a more complete evaluation of the risks ( particularly with regard to PCP) associated with the use of PCNB.

PCP has been reported to be a " major" degradate of PCNB when the compound is microbially metabolized in soil ( Murthy & Kaufman, 1978; Motoyama et al., 2001). However, the term " major" was not defined in either of the publications and the second publication merely cited the first as the source of their information, as did other studies found in the literature. Thus, EFED's fairly extensive literature search resulted in only one primary reference in which it was stated that PCP is a soil 9 metabolite of PCNB. Attempts to contact the study authors or their successors at the ( former) USDA Pesticide Degradation Laboratory were unsuccessful.

In the first publication ( i. e., Murthy & Kaufman), the study authors were unable to quantify the amount of PCP formed, as they discarded the aqueous portion ( which accounted for 8 16% of the 56 58% of the applied that was extracted from the soil samples, for a maximum possible level of 9.28% of the applied) of their extract following an organic extraction, and were therefore unable to analyze the aqueous phase for PCP. In subsequent investigations, the study authors were able to determine ( through GLC and TLC) that PCP was the compound present in the aqueous phase of the soil extract, but did not attempt to quantify the residues.

In a study done in Japan, it appears that PCP was not detected in a volcanic ash soil which had been extensively treated in the past with PCNB and in which the parent compound was detected in the soil at 10.10 ppm ( Ohsawa et al., 1984). However, the compound pentachloroanisole ( PCAN), which is a methylated derivative of and can interconvert with PCP under certain conditions, was detected at 0.009 ppm. ( Further interpretation of this study was hindered by the fact that much of the text was in Japanese and a translation was not available.) It has been suggested in the literature that PCAN is the product of the microbial degradation of PCP following that compound's formation from PCNB by soil microbes ( Murthy and Kaufman, 1978; Murthy et al., 1979). In a study of PCNB degradation by fungi, PCAN was detected ( Mora Torres et al., 1996). In a study on PCNB degradation by soil microbes native to France, neither PCP nor PCAN were observed; degradates included only PCA and PCTA ( Mora Torres et al., 2000).

In a study of the metabolism of PCNB in anaerobic sediment in Japan, PCP was not identified as a degradate; degradates included pentachloroaniline, 2,3,4,5 tetrachloroaniline, 3,4,5 trichloroaniline, 3,5 dichloroaniline and 3 chloroaniline ( with 2 CA and 4 CA identified as intermediates; Susarla et al., 1996). Tetrachloroaniline has also been identified as a metabolite of PCNB in other studies ( Mora Torres et al., 1996).

These results indicate that there are conditions under which PCP can form in the environment, but does not form under all conditions. At this point in time, we do not have sufficient information to determine what conditions favor PCP formation and which do not. Nor is there sufficient information to quantify the amount and rate of formation of PCP from PCNB when PCP is produced. Consequently, EFED is unable to estimate how much PCP might occur in drinking water from PCNB use. EFED has indicated to SRRD that additional data on the microbial metabolism of PCNB in both aerobic and anaerobic soil/ water systems are necessary for a more complete evaluation of the risks associated with PCNB, particularly with regard to PCP.

Literature Cited California EPA; Sampling for pesticide residues in California well water. 1995 Update of The Well Inventory Database in California. CA Environmental Protection Agency, Dept. of Pesticide Regulation, 10th Annual Report. ( December 1995) 10 Cohen, S., A. Svrjcek, T. Durborrow, N. Lajan Barnes. Water quality impacts by golf courses. J. Environ. Qual. 28: 798 809.

Mora Torres, R., C. Grosset and J. Alary. Chromatographia 51: 526 530 ( 2000).

Mora Torres, R., C. Grosset, R. Steiman, and J. Alary. Liquid chromatography study of degradation and metabolism of pentachloronitrobenzene by four soil micromycetes. Chemosphere 33: 683 692 ( 1996).

Motoyama, T., K. Kadokura, S. Tatsusawa, T. Arie, and I. Yamaguchi. Application of plant microbe systems to bioremediation. RIKEN Re. 42: 35 38 ( 2001).

Murthy, N. B. K. and D. D. Kaufman. Degradation of pentachloronitrobenzene ( PCNB) in anaerobic soils. J. Agric. Food Chem. 26: 1151 1156. ( 1978).

Murthy, N. B. K., D. D. Kaufman and G. F. Fries. Degradation of pentachlorophenol ( PCP) in aerobic and anaerobic soil. J. Environ. Sci. Health B14: 1 14 ( 1979).

Ohsawa, K., T. Miyamoto, and I. Yamamoto. Residue analysis of pentachloronitrobenzene and its related compound ( sic) in soils by mass fragmentography. J. Pestic. Sci. 9: 339 345 ( 1984).

Rostad, C. E., W. E. Pereira and T. J. Leiker. 1999. Distribution and transport of selected anthropogenic lipophilic organic compounds associated with Mississippi River suspended sediment, 1989   1990. Archives of Environ. Contam. and Tox. 36: 248   255.

Susarla, S., S. Masunaga and Y. Yonezawa. Transformation of chloronitrobenzenes in anaerobic sediment. Chemosphere 32: 967 977 ( 1996).

USEPA. Pesticides in groundwater database. A compilation of monitoring studies: 1971 1991. National summary. USEPA/ OPP/ OPPTS. USEPA 734 12 92 001 ( 1992). 11 ATTACHMENT 1: FIRST File RUN No. 1 FOR pcnb ON turf * INPUT VALUES *  RATE (#/ AC) No. APPS & SOIL SOLUBIL APPL TYPE % CROPPED INCORP ONE( MULT) INTERVAL Kd ( PPB ) (% DRIFT) AREA ( IN)  32.670( 65.036) 2 21 15.5 440.0 GRANUL( .0) 87.0 .0 FIELD AND RESERVOIR HALFLIFE VALUES ( DAYS)  METABOLIC DAYS UNTIL HYDROLYSIS PHOTOLYSIS METABOLIC COMBINED ( FIELD) RAIN/ RUNOFF ( RESERVOIR) ( RES. EFF) ( RESER.) ( RESER.)  1555.00 2 N/ A 1.83 226.92 ****** 211.49 UNTREATED WATER CONC ( MICROGRAMS/ LITER ( PPB)) Ver 1.0 AUG 1, 2001  PEAK DAY ( ACUTE) ANNUAL AVERAGE ( CHRONIC) CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION  440.000 440.000 12 ATTACHMENT 2: SCI GROW File SCIGROW VERSION 2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL FATE AND EFFECTS DIVISION OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY SCREENING MODEL FOR AQUATIC PESTICIDE EXPOSURE SciGrow version 2.3 chemical: pcnb time is 10/ 20/ 2003 13: 19: 59  Application Number of Total Use Koc Soil Aerobic rate ( lb/ acre) applications ( lb/ acre/ yr) ( ml/ g) metabolism ( days)  213.400 1.0 213.400 1.59E+ 03 750.5  groundwater screening cond ( ppb) = 3.06E+ 01 ************************************************************************* 13 ATTACHMENT 3: General fate and physical chemical property source data for PCNB modeling.

PARAMETER VALUE Chemical Name pentachloronitrobenzene Molecular Weight 295.3 Solubility ( 25 oC) 0.44 mg/ L ( 440 ppb)

Vapor Pressure ( 25 oC) 1.13 x 10 4 mmHg Hydrolysis Half life ( pH 5, 7, 9; 25 oC) stable ( MRID's 40865301, 40972601)

Aqueous Photolysis Half life ( pH 7) t 1/ 2 = 2.5 days ( MRID's 42606201, 42606202) t 1/ 2 = 26.8 hours ( MRID 42336201)

Soil Photolysis Half life stable ( MRID's 41004801, 41713201)

Aerobic Soil Metabolism Half life t 1/ 2 = 77, 189 days ( parent only); t 1/ 2 = 489, 1012 days ( parent plus PCA) 1 t 1/ 2 = 983, 1052 days ( total residues) 2 ( MRID's 42911902, 41384501, 41713202, 42112801)

Anaerobic Soil Metabolism Half life t 1/ 2 = 9 days, < 30 ( DT 50; parent only); t 1/ 2 = 210, 410 days ( parent plus PCA, PCP) t 1/ 2 = 268, 334 days ( total residues) ( MRID's 41203602, 42094401, 41384301, 41686001, 41713202, 42112802)

Organic Carbon Partition Coefficient ( K oc) 1588, 2912, 3870, 17508 ( MRID 41648201)

Soil Partition Coefficient ( K d, mL/ g) 7.3, 15.5, 19.1, 210 ( MRID 41648201)

1For the purposes of the drinking water assessment, half lives were recalculated to account for the parent plus the degradates PCA and PCP, when monitored and detected. 2For the purposes of the ecological assessment, half lives were recalculated to account for total residues, inclusive of the parent plus the degradates PCA, PCTA, PCB, PCP, PCTASO, PCTASO 2, and the manufacturing contaminant HCB.


[Federal Register: December 9, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 236)]
[Notices]
[Page 73313-73314]
[DOCID:fr09de05-130]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC
20549.

Extension:
    Rule 15Aj-1. SEC File No. 270-25. OMB Control No. 3235-0044.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collections
of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit these
existing collections of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Rule 15Aj-1 implements the requirements of sections 15A, 17, and 19
of the Act by requiring every association registered as, or applying
for registration as, a national securities association or as an
affiliated securities association to keep its registration statement
up-to-date by making periodic filings with the Commission on Form X-
15AJ-1 and Form X-15AJ-2.
    Rule 15Aj-1 requires a securities association to promptly notify
the Commission after the discovery of any inaccuracy in its
registration statement or in any amendment or supplement thereto by
filing an amendment to its

registration statement on Form X-15AJ-1 correcting such inaccuracy. The
Rule also requires an association to promptly notify the Commission of
any change which renders no longer accurate any information contained
or incorporated in its registration statement or in any amendment or
supplement thereto by filing a current supplement on Form X-15AJ-1.
Rule 15Aj-1 further requires an association to file each year with the
Commission an annual consolidated supplement on Form X-15AJ-2.
    The information required by Rule 15Aj-1 and Forms X-15AJ-1 and X-
15AJ-2 is intended to enable the Commission to carry out its
statutorily mandated oversight functions and to assure that registered
securities associations are in compliance with the Act. This
information is also made available to members of the public. Without
the requirements imposed by the Rule, the Commission would be unable to
fulfill its regulatory responsibilities.
    There is presently only one registered securities association,
which registered in 1939, subject to the Rule. The burdens associated
with Rule 15Aj-1 requirements have been borne by only one securities
association since Rule 15Aj-1 was adopted. Furthermore, the burdens
associated with Rule 15Aj-1 vary depending on whether amendments and
current supplements are filed on Form X-15AJ-1 in addition to an annual
consolidated supplement filed on Form X-15AJ-2. The Commission staff
estimates the burden in hours necessary to comply with the Rule by
filing an amendment or a current supplement on Form X-15AJ-1 to be
approximately one-half hour, with a related cost of $11, per response.
The Commission staff estimates the burden in hours necessary to comply
with the Rule by filing an annual consolidated supplement on Form X-
15AJ-2 to be approximately three hours, with a related cost of $90.
Therefore, the Commission staff estimates that the total annual related
reporting cost associated with the Rule to be upwards of $90, assuming
a minimum filing of an annual consolidated statement on Form X-15AJ-2,
with additional filings on Form X-15AJ-1 correspondingly increasing
such reporting cost.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate
of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    Direct your written comments to R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place,
100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549.

    Dated: December 1, 2005.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-7113 Filed 12-8-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P