[Federal Register: May 19, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 96)]
[Notices]
[Page 28014-28018]
[DOCID:fr19my10-55]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-1005; FRL-8824-4]

Petitions Concerning Whether Ammonia or Urea Sold or Distributed
and Used for Certain Purposes Should Be Regulated as Pesticides

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice makes available for review and public comment
three petitions concerning the regulatory status under the Federal
Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) of products
containing ammonia or urea sold or distributed for use in the presence
of sodium hypochlorite as a biocide or as part of a biocidal system in
the production of pulp and paperboard products. The notice also makes
available for review and public comment documents associated with the
petitions which have also been placed in a docket created for this
matter. That docket may be accessed as described in this Notice. The
Agency registered as ``pesticides'' two products containing ammonia as
the active ingredient based on applications for registration and
supporting data submitted by Buckman Laboratories, Inc. (Buckman). The
Agency has also registered an ammonium bromide product for a similar
use in the pulp and paperboard industry. Another company, Nalco, Inc.
(Nalco) is currently selling unregistered ammonia and urea products to
the pulp and paperboard industry for use in a manner similar to those
of the three registered products. Nalco informed EPA of its view that
Buckman's ammonia products were not ``pesticides'' and argued therefore
that EPA should not have registered them under FIFRA. Nalco petitioned
the Agency to cancel Buckman's registrations for the two ammonia
products. Subsequently, the Agency received two other petitions from
Buckman and Ashland Hercules Water Technologies (Ashland-Hercules),
which would also be affected by any Agency decision relative to the
contested uses of ammonia and urea, supporting the decision to register
ammonia and further requesting that the Agency find Nalco's sale and
distribution of its unregistered ammonia product to be contrary to law.
Ashland-Hercules also raised issues relative to the safe use and risks
associated with the unregistered use of urea in chlorinated water in
pulp and paper mill use scenarios and asked that the Agency find that
Nalco's sale and distribution of its urea product was unlawful.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 19, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments identified by the docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-2009-1005, 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>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to the docket ID number EPA-HQ-
2009-1005. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line 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 regulations.gov or e-
mail. The 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 e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the 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 docket index
available at http://www.regulations.gov. 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, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either 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 hours of
operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact: Melba
S. Morrow, Antimicrobials Division (7510P), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
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 a
business engaged in the manufacturing of pesticides and other
agricultural chemicals. Potentially affected entities may include, but
are not limited to:
      Pesticide and other agricultural and chemical
manufacturing (NAICS code 325320) e.g. businesses engaged in the
manufacture of pesticides.
     Pulp and paperboard industries (NAICS code 322110,
322130).
     Antimicrobial pesticides (NAICS code 32561).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected. The North
American Industrial Classification System 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 please contact the person list
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree with any of positions taken
in the petitions; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your
requested changes. Carefully consider the merits of what you are
proposing.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient details to allow it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest appropriate alternative measures when possible.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline that has been identified.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the
pesticide(s) discussed in this document, compared to the general
population.

II. Legal Authority

    Under FIFRA and its regulations, no person may distribute or sell
any pesticide product that is not registered under the Act except as
provided under 40 CFR 152.20, 152.25 and 152.30. A pesticide is any
substance (or mixture of substances) intended for a pesticidal purpose
i.e., use for the purpose of preventing, destroying, repelling, or
mitigating any pest, among other things. The regulations in 40 CFR
152.15 contain provisions that guide the Agency's determination of
whether a particular product is a ``pesticide'' under FIFRA.
    FIFRA also provides the Agency with authority to cancel or suspend
pesticides which do not comply with the Act or no longer meet the
statutory standard for registration. FIFRA further authorizes the
Agency to initiate enforcement action against persons who are not in
compliance with the Act. Enforcement actions may, among other things,
be initiated on the basis of sale or distribution of unregistered
pesticide products or unlawful use of a registered pesticide product.
See generally, FIFRA Sections 3, 6, 12, and 13.

III. History of Registrations for Ammonia and Urea Products for Use in
the Pulp and Paper Industry

    Buckman is the registrant of BCMW (EPA Reg. No. 1448-432) and Busan
1215 (EPA Reg. No.1442-433). Both products were registered in 2007, and
both products contain ammonia as the active ingredient. Buckman's
ammonia products are registered for use as a water treatment in
combination with sodium hypochlorite to inhibit the growth of bacteria
in pulp and paper mills. Ashland-Hercules is the authorized distributor
of Spectrum XD3899 Ammonium Bromide Technology (EPA Reg. No. 8622-64-
74655), an ammonium bromide solution sold as a FIFRA Section 3(e)
supplemental distributor product under Ameribrom, Inc.'s Fuzzicide
Solution (EPA Reg. No. 8622-64) that was registered in 2003. Nalco does
not hold any registrations for ammonia or urea products for use in pulp
and paper mills. Nalco is currently marketing and distributing their
ammonia product, Nalcon 60620, that is used in combination with sodium
hypochlorite. Nalco is also marketing and distributing a urea-based
product, Nalcon 60615, which is also used as a water treatment for the
production of biocides in pulp and paper mill settings.

IV. Summary of the Petitions and Other Documents

    The Agency has received petitions and multiple related submissions
from Ashland-Hercules, Buckman, and Nalco regarding the regulatory
status of products containing ammonia or urea when intended for use in
the presence of sodium hypochlorite as a biocide or as part of a
biocidal system in the production of pulp and paperboard products. The
submissions from Nalco generally argue that under FIFRA, those products
are not ``pesticides'' when used under that circumstance. The
submissions provided by Ashland-Hercules and Buckman argue that these
products when intended or used for such purpose are ``pesticides''
requiring registration under FIFRA. The history of each petition and
the principal arguments are summarized below.

A. Nalco, Inc.

    Nalco filed a petition on October 30, 2007 and requested that EPA
revisit the requirement to register ammonia as a pesticide under FIFRA.
The petitioner acknowledged the Agency had issued registrations for
products containing ammonia to be used to inhibit the growth of
bacteria in water used in pulp and paper mills. In its discussion of
current biocidal control practices in the manufacture of pulp and
paperboard products, the petitioner explained that it is common
practice to add ammonia-based products to water which has been treated
with chlorine in order to generate chloramines. Nalco further contended
that, by requiring registration of ammonia, all companies that
currently provide unregistered ammonia products for use with chlorine
in water treatment are in violation of FIFRA. The Nalco petition stated
that, in requiring the registration of ammonia, the Agency had failed
to assess the impact that such a requirement would have on the
regulated community. According to Nalco, EPA's decision to register
ammonia products intended for use as part of a biocidal system in the
production of pulp and paperboard products represented a change in
EPA's policy that was undertaken without an opportunity for public
input. The Nalco petition further stated that requiring registration of
ammonia would in essence require that all users purchase ammonia from
the only EPA-registered source. The Nalco petition requested that the
Agency issue an interim statement that the sale of ammonia-based
compounds for use with chlorine in water systems would not result in
enforcement action and that the Agency would reconsider whether
companies need to register ammonia when intended for use as part of a
biocidal system in the production of pulp and paperboard products. The
petition also argued that the decision to require the registration of
ammonia products would also have an impact on municipal water treatment
facilities, as the practice of adding ammonia is necessary to produce
chloramines for municipal water disinfection.
    On December 4, 2007, Nalco wrote the Agency asking EPA to
reconsider earlier actions requiring the registration of ammonia, which
Nalco described as a ``precursor'' to chloramine in water treatment
processes, and to assure Nalco that there would be no enforcement
action taken during the transition period. The December 4 Nalco
submission made the following assertions and arguments:
     As shown in the background information on the chemistry of
chlorine in antimicrobial water treatment, chloramines are weak
biocides. Because they are more stable than chlorine, chloramines are
used in water systems to extend the period of antimicrobial activity
and to minimize the production of other by-products of water
disinfection by reducing the reactivity of chlorine.
     Ammonia is not a pesticide and does not contribute to the
pesticidal activity of sodium hypochlorite or other chlorine-based
water disinfectants. In industrial water systems such as those used by
pulp and paper mills, there is high organic content in the water
systems which can be controlled through the generation of chloramines.
Chloramines reduce disinfection demands. The pesticidal activity of
chloramine is a result of the residual activity of chlorine.
     Chlorine is the active ingredient in water treatment and
the reaction with ammonia only stabilizes or sequesters ammonia. Thus,
ammonia is not a precursor for in situ generation of a pesticide.
Moreover, even if ammonia were a precursor, the Agency's decision to
register ammonia is inappropriate because in the past, EPA has
registered precursors when they are the only logical chemical through
which the use of a pesticide can be regulated. Prior to the
registration of ammonia for use as part of a biocidal system in the
production of pulp and paperboard products, the Agency never required
registration of ammonia compounds.
     Rather than designating ammonia as a ``precursor,'' EPA
should consider it a ``stabilizer'' or an ``activator.'' The Agency's
historical position has been that activators need not be registered.
The Agency's decision to require the registration of ammonia is also
inconsistent with the Agency's position on other chemicals, such as
cyanuric acid used to stabilize chlorine in swimming pools, which
performs similar functions. The submission contained an Appendix
listing inert ingredients found in other pesticides that allegedly play
a role similar to ammonia.
     The Agency should articulate a rule of decision regarding
when registration is required and assess the impact of that rule before
it is implemented. The rationale for a decision to require registration
of ammonia should also be articulated. The current situation, in which
one registrant of ammonia is threatening enforcement against users of
similar systems in pulp and paper mills using unregistered ammonia
compound, is causing confusion in the marketplace.
    In follow-up to the December submission, on February 7, 2008, EPA
sent Nalco a letter indicating that the December 4th communication
would be treated as a petition. The letter further stated ``...the
Office of Pesticide Programs would regard Nalco's sale and distribution
of ammonia and ammonia products for use in connection with chlorine to
treat water to require registration under FIFRA Section 3 only if Nalco
makes a pesticidal claim for such products.'' In July 2008, the Agency
asked Nalco to define the term ``activator'' and to provide further
explanation of the relationship between ammonia and the inert
ingredients listed in the appendix to the December submission.
    In July 2008, Nalco filed a supplement to its December 2007
submission. Nalco acknowledged that there is no regulatory definition
of an activator and stated its opinion that ammonia is merely a
``stabilizer'' which acts to prolong the availability of chlorine, and
would therefore not meet the definition of a pesticide. Nalco further
characterized ammonia as a ``sequestrant'', and defined that term as a
substance which acts by preventing or inhibiting normal ion behavior by
combination with added materials. In reference to the compounds
identified in an appendix to Nalco's December 2007 submission, Nalco
stated that they were included as examples of available compounds that
have been determined by the Agency to be inert compounds. The
description of the purpose of the inert component indicates that it
will modify the activity of or interact with the pesticidally active
ingredient in the formulation. Nalco compared the role of the inert
compounds to that of ammonia by stating that the description of the
inert compounds suggests a chemical

reaction but not one that is needed to produce a pesticidally active
ingredient.

B. Buckman Laboratories, Inc.

    Buckman filed its petition on September 2, 2008, and responded to
the concerns raised by Nalco's petition. Buckman defended the status of
its ammonia products as registered pesticides and requested that the
Agency immediately prohibit further distribution and sale of
unregistered ammonia for water treatment. In addition, Buckman provided
information on the chemical reaction which results in the formation of
chloramines following the addition of ammonia to chlorinated water.
Buckman stated in its petition that ammonia does not sequester or
release chlorine and is not an adjuvant. Buckman further contended that
ammonia reacts with sodium hypochlorite to produce an entirely new
active ingredient, monochloramine (MCA), which has distinct biocidal
properties. Buckman stated its opinion that the MCA, which is created
by the chemical reaction, ``is the main active ingredient'' for
biocidal water treatment in the pulp and paper process.
    Buckman provided the following rationale to support its request
that the Agency maintain the status quo, i.e., its position that
products containing ammonia intended for use in the presence of sodium
hypochlorite as a biocide or as part of a biocidal system in the
production of pulp and paperboard products are pesticides requiring
registration under FIFRA. Buckman repeated its request that EPA
prohibit further distribution and sale of unregistered ammonia
products. Buckman's main points were:
     Both Nalco and Buckman sell ammonia for use in proprietary
systems in which ammonia and sodium hypochlorite react to form
monochloramine, which is the active ingredient supplied by each system
for water treatment. The basic chemistry involving both the Nalco and
Buckman products and the production of MCA is the same.
     The registration of ammonia is necessary because
monochloramine is too unstable to exist as a marketable commodity, and
no EPA-approved sodium hypochlorite label has instructions for use with
ammonia to result in the safe production of MCA. In addition, the
continued use of unregistered ammonia to produce MCA poses a
potentially unreasonable risk to human health and the environment.
There is no way to ensure that the MCA produced with an unapproved
product will result in acceptable residues in food packaging or not
pose a risk of toxicity to aquatic organisms from the residues in the
effluent.
     Ammonia does not sequester or release chlorine and is not
an adjuvant. Ammonia reacts with sodium hypochlorite to produce MCA
which has distinct properties (the mechanism by which it inactivates
microorganisms by adversely affecting cell respiration, transport and
DNA activity; a different spectrum of antimicrobial activity) from
hypochlorous acid.
     The Agency should deny Nalco's petition to revoke
Buckman's ammonia registrations because the Agency has acted properly
in its registration of ammonia as a precursor to the formation of MCA
for water treatment. As a precursor of MCA, ammonia reacts with sodium
hypochlorite to produce a new active ingredient, which has distinct
properties as described above.
     The Agency should prohibit further distribution and sale
of unregistered ammonia for water treatment because the continued sale
of unregistered ammonia presents an unreasonable risk to public health
and unfairly damages the commercial value of Buckman's registrations.

C. Ashland-Hercules

    Ashland-Hercules contacted the Agency in February 2009 with a
petition that also included a file of correspondence to and from the
Agency that dated back to June 2008. Ashland-Hercules's arguments were
basically the same as those provided by Buckman with regard to Nalco's
distribution and sale of unregistered ammonia for use with sodium
hypochlorite as a biocide or as part of a biocidal system in the
production of pulp and paperboard products. Ashland-Hercules further
discussed the need for the Agency to take action against the sale or
distribution of unregistered urea products as biocidal agents in the
pulp and paperboard industry. Ashland-Hercules based this on arguments
that urea has not been subjected to review for registration as an
antimicrobial pesticide as required under FIFRA. Ashland-Hercules
stated that the use of an unregistered urea-based product presents
potential risks to human health and safety that EPA has not evaluated.
Ashland- Hercules made the following points:
     There is a distinction between the treatment of public
potable water supplies with MCA and the application of ammonia in the
presence of sodium hypochlorite to prevent biofouling in the paper
industry. Although the two uses are conceptually similar, the
concentrations at which ammonia and chlorine are used are not the same.
     The potential hazards presented by the unregulated and
uncontrolled use of ammonia-based biocides in pulp and paper mills are
far greater than those associated with potable water treatment because
of higher concentrations of chemicals that are used for biocidal
activity in pulp and paper mills, thereby exposing workers to increased
risks.
     While ammonia-based products used in treating potable
water may not be registered under FIFRA, EPA has regulated chloramines
produced by the addition of ammonia to chlorine under the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA). Thus, there is a basis for assuring the safety of
potable water using the authority of the SDWA. The same can not be said
for Nalco's product.
     The chemical reaction that takes place when concentrated
ammonia-based compounds are combined in situ with concentrated sodium
hypochlorite can result in the release of hazardous gases such as
nitrogen trichloride and raises safety concerns when using Nalco's
product.
     An unregistered product has no upper limits for feed
rates. The exposure to the undesirable compounds produced during the
uncontrolled mixing of concentrated solutions of ammonium sulfate and
sodium hypochlorite is unlimited as well.

D. Current Status

    The Agency believes that all three parties have raised matters
which pose common issues and which therefore are being considered and
addressed together. The Agency's Office of Pesticide Programs, which is
leading this effort to consider these petitions, is also examining
other issues, including any potential issues involving EPA's Office of
Water and is obtaining information for use in making its decision on
whether the sale and distribution of ammonia and urea products for use
with chlorine-treated water in pulp and paper production are pesticidal
uses that require registration under FIFRA.
    EPA held a meeting on February 16, 2010 with all of the parties who
either hold registrations for ammonia or who had petitioned the Agency
with concerns pertaining to the status of the ammonia or urea products
described above. The materials from the meeting as well as a transcript
of the meeting have been placed in the docket, along with the three
petitions, and correspondence associated with the petitions.

V. What Action is the Agency Taking

    Through this notice, the Agency is making the petitions and other
correspondence submitted by Nalco, Buckman Laboratories and Ashland
Hercules available for public review and comment. Any public comments
received on these petitions will be included in the electronic docket
and reviewed by the Agency. Following review of the petitions and any
comments received in response to this notice, EPA will issue its
decision and response to the petitions.
    In reviewing the materials in the docket and submitting any
comments to the Agency, the Agency requests that, in addition to
providing comments regarding any other issues raised by the materials
in the docket, commenters respond to the following specific questions:
     When the ingredients in a product do not provide any
pesticidal activity unless they react with other chemicals, should the
product be treated as a pesticide? Are there any other factors which
could or should lead to a different outcome in different settings? If
so, what are they and what would the different outcome be?
     When a product is marketed as an essential part of a
system or as a co-ingredient in a treatment regime that provides a
pesticidal function, should the product be registered as a pesticide?
Should the system be registered as a pesticide product? Are there any
other factors which could or should lead to a different outcome in
different settings? If so, what are they and what would the different
outcome be?
     If a system is registered as a pesticide, how should
requirements governing labeling and compositions apply to the system
and to individual products comprising the system?
     What are the implications for other products containing
ammonia or urea that are used in conjunction with chlorine-treated
water in settings other than the production of pulp and paperboard?
     What substances, other than ammonia or urea, are sold for
uses similar to the Ashland, Buckman, and Nalco products, and might
require registration or might currently be registered?

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: May 3, 2010.
Joan Harrigan-Farrelly,
Director, Antimicrobial Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2010-11445 Filed 5-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register: September 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 188)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 60004-60008]
[DOCID:fr29se10-12]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

49 CFR Part 71

[OST Docket No. OST-2010-0046]

Relocation of Standard Time Zone Boundary in the State of North
Dakota: Mercer County

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: DOT is moving all of Mercer County, North Dakota to the
central time zone. Prior to this action, all of Mercer County was
located in the mountain time zone. This action is taken in response to
a petition filed by the Board of County Commissioners for Mercer County
and is based on comments made at a public hearing and filed in the
docket.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule will be effective November 7,
2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert C. Ashby, Deputy Assistant
General Counsel for Regulation and Enforcement, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Room W94-302, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    For more than a century, time zone boundaries in North Dakota have
had an interesting and varied history. Beginning in 1883, mountain time
was observed in the southwest portion of the State and a few locations
in the northwest, with central time being used elsewhere. In 1929, the
Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), which then had jurisdiction over
time zone boundaries, extended central time to cover all but a cluster
of counties in the southwest corner of the State. Congress transferred
the ICC's time zone boundary powers to the Department of Transportation
(DOT) in 1967. DOT exercises these powers under the provisions of the
Uniform Time Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 260-64).
    The Department has exercised its authority under this statute in
several proceedings affecting North Dakota. In 1968, in response to a
petition from the Governor of North Dakota, the Department placed 14
counties lying south and west of the Missouri River into mountain time.
The change was made to accommodate the historical pattern of time
observance in the State. In 1992, in response to a petition from the
Board of Commissioners of Oliver County (which is adjacent to Mercer
County), the Department moved that county into the central time zone.
The Department took similar action with respect to Morton County and a
portion of Sioux County in 2003.
    In 2000-2003, the Department considered a petition from the Mercer
County Commission to move the county to the central time zone. The
proposal was controversial in the county. A 2000 referendum favored
changing to central time by a vote of 1,180 to 1,038. However, a
majority of written comments to the Department's docket, and much of
the sentiment of persons attending a public hearing, favored keeping
the county in the mountain time zone. After considering the comments,
and while acknowledging the reasons supporting a change, the Department
decided to deny the petition (68 FR 53082; September 9, 2003). The
Department's decision noted that the Commission was free to file a new
petition on the subject in the future. In a petition dated October 9,
2009, Mr. Lyle L. Latimer, Chairman of Mercer County Board of County
Commissioners, asked the Department to move the county from the
mountain time zone to the central time zone.
    Under the Uniform Time Act, the Secretary of Transportation has
authority to issue regulations modifying the boundaries between time
zones in the United States in order to move an area from one time zone
to another. The standard in the statute for such decisions is ``regard
for the convenience of commerce and the existing junction points and
division points of common carriers engaged in interstate or foreign
commerce.'' The principal standard for deciding whether to change a
time zone is defined very broadly to include consideration of all the
impacts upon a community of a change in its standard of time. DOT has
developed a series of questions to assist communities and us in
determining the impact of a time zone change on the ``convenience of
commerce.'' The Department considers information bearing on these
questions in making its decision on a proposed time zone change.
    1. From where do businesses in the community get their supplies,
and to where do they ship their goods or products?
    2. From where does the community receive television and radio
broadcasts?
    3. Where are the newspapers published that serve the community?
    4. From where does the community get its bus and passenger rail
services; if there is no scheduled bus or passenger rail service in the
community, to where

must residents go to obtain these services?
    5. Where is the nearest airport; if it is a local service airport,
to what major airport does it carry passengers?
    6. What percentage of residents of the community work outside the
community; where do these residents work?
    7. What are the major elements of the community's economy; is the
community's economy improving or declining; what Federal, State or
local plans, if any, are there for economic development in the
community?
    8. If residents leave the community for schooling, recreation,
health care, or religious worship, what standard of time is observed in
the places where they go for these purposes?

The Petition for Rulemaking

    In October 2009, the Board of Commissioners for Mercer County,
North Dakota, petitioned the Secretary of Transportation to move Mercer
County from the mountain time zone to the central time zone. The Mercer
County petition stated several reasons for the request, outlining the
Commission's view of why the change would meet the ``convenience of
commerce'' standard. The following is a summary of the reasons asserted
in support of the request, which address several of the Department's
questions.
     Almost all supplies for businesses in Mercer County,
including the coal and agriculture industries, are shipped from the
Bismarck/Mandan area and from other points in the central time zone.
     Communications media (newspapers, radio and television
stations) serving Mercer County are based in the Bismarck/Mandan area.
     There is no regular passenger transportation serving
Mercer County. Residents go to the Bismarck/Mandan area to catch
planes, trains, and buses.
     The main offices for several Mercer County energy industry
facilities are located in Bismarck.
     Many residents regularly travel to the Bismarck/Mandan
area for recreation, health care, and other purposes.
     Geographically, Mercer County is adjacent to the central
time zone on the east, north, and south sides of the county, and is
therefore well located for inclusion in the central time zone. The Fort
Berthold Indian Reservation, located in Mercer County, is currently in
the central time zone.

Public Comments

    On March 3, 2010, the Department published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (75 FR 9568) announcing the proposed change and inviting
public comment. A DOT representative conducted a public hearing in
Hazen, North Dakota on May 14, 2010. At the meeting, 14 persons spoke
in favor of switching to central time and five spoke in favor of
remaining in mountain time.
    Over 400 written comments were submitted to the docket. These
submissions included many detailed letters, a number of anonymous
comments, and some brief statements simply expressing a preference for
either mountain or central time. The submissions came from individuals,
businesses, medical service providers, local Chambers of Commerce, and
school districts. We appreciate the time and effort of the people who
expressed their opinion at the public meeting and through written
comments, providing the Department with the factual basis upon which to
make a decision.

Comments in Support of Central Time

    Approximately 250 comments, including written submissions and those
comments made at the hearing, favored a switch to central time. Our
decision, however, is not based on the number of comments supporting a
particular time zone. As discussed above, the decision is based on the
statutory ``convenience of commerce'' standard and the comments help us
to make the decision by providing factual information regarding the
impact of a time zone change on a community. The comments supporting a
move to central time addressed five impacted areas that would be
improved by a change of time zones: (1) Transportation, (2) business,
(3) schools and other public agencies, (4) health care, and (5) family
life.
    In the area of transportation, many submissions noted that the
closest transportation hub is Bismarck, which is on central time.
Numerous individuals explained that catching a morning flight out of
Bismarck is inconvenient, because they either have to get up very early
in the morning to account for the one hour time difference, or pay to
spend the night before their flight in a hotel.
    The docket included abundant comments focusing on the impact of a
time zone switch on businesses in Mercer County. Most of the power
plants and mines, which are major employers in Mercer County, already
run on central time. The manager of Coyote electric generating plant
expressed how confusing it is to be located in mountain time, but
operating on central time.
    From the comments submitted, it appears that the majority of the
county's businesses have their suppliers and customers in central time
and believe that moving Mercer County to central time would serve the
convenience of commerce. Many people explained that because their
businesses primarily conduct transactions with entities located in
central time, they lose valuable work time every day--at least an hour
in the morning, an hour at lunch time, and an hour at the end of the
day. The manager of the Beulah Motor Vehicle Branch Office wrote that
all their office support comes from the State office in Bismarck, and
they therefore lose three hours a day of contact with key support
functions. The President of Dakota Helicopters, Inc. explained that
they are in a ``constant battle'' to complete their daily activities
with their vendors in a shortened time span, because the vendors are
all on central time. Other comments focused on the ongoing struggle
businesses face to schedule meetings, teleconferences, and seminars
with businesses located in central time.
    Being on mountain time also adversely affects the quality of
services that businesses in Mercer County provide, commenters asserted.
A submission from the secretary and treasurer of Knife River Indian
Heritage Foundation portrayed how frequently tourists get confused
about the time and arrive too early or too late for events at the
Foundation. The owner of Beulah Drug Company explained that all of
their suppliers and technical support are located on central or eastern
time; on many occasions they have needed a service or product, but have
had to wait an extra day because the supplier was already closed. The
Beulah Public Library is one of only two libraries in a 25-member
consortium that is on mountain time, which creates scheduling issues.
The Library also believes that switching to central time would allow
them to better serve their patrons, because their hours would coincide
with the area power plants and mines. Moreover, several business owners
suggested that they would have an easier time recruiting employees who
live in central time if Mercer County switched to central time.
    The Mercer County time zone also has a major impact on the schools.
The Center-Stanton Public School Board, the Beulah Board of Education,
and the Hazen Public School Board all submitted comments favoring a
switch to central time. The Center-Stanton school district is currently
divided, with half of the district on central time and half on mountain
time. The Superintendent explained how this makes scheduling meetings
difficult,

and it also requires the students residing in Stanton to wake up very
early in the morning to be ready for the bus.
    The Beulah School Board said that in the 2008-2009 school year
school athletic teams participated in 180 varsity-level extracurricular
contests, with 119 of those in central time. The comment explained that
the students leaving school early for these events lose an hour of
instruction more than they would if Mercer County were on central time.
The Hazen School Board, as well as many parents of children in Mercer
County schools, also expressed concern over the lost educational time.
An added difficulty relates to the present trend of schools in North
Dakota to move to distance education; the different time zones make the
coordination of distance education cumbersome.
    A recurrent theme in the comments was that mountain time negatively
impacts health care for Mercer County residents. A number of health
care providers submitted comments to the docket addressing the
operational issues that arise from the time zone difference. Some of
the issues mentioned were that communications with health care
facilities in Bismarck are more difficult to schedule, that patients
often miss appointments because of the time difference, and that it is
confusing for physicians in Bismarck to review charts of patients seen
in Mercer County because they have to readjust the timeframe to
determine when events occurred. The Medical Center noted that it is
difficult for their providers to schedule follow-up appointments for
patients who are seen in the middle to late afternoon at their clinics
in Hazen, because the clinics in Bismarck and Minot are already closed.
    A large number of individuals described the inconvenience of making
and attending medical appointments in central time. Many medical
procedures are only offered in the larger medical facilities in
Bismarck. These appointments are usually scheduled first thing in the
morning. Thus, the Mercer County residents have to leave very early in
the morning to get to appointments in central time. The Administrator
of the Knife River Care Center, a long-term care facility in Beulah,
wrote that they frequently transport residents to medical appointments
in Bismarck. Having to leave so early in the morning makes it harder
for the resident, the van driver, and the staff. The belief that
medical care would be much more convenient if Mercer County switched to
central time was mentioned numerous times in both the public hearing
comments and the written comments.
    Many people also described the strain on family life that results
from constantly coping with two time zones. They depicted households
with two sets of clocks set to different time zones to accommodate the
fact that the parents work in central time while the children attend
school in mountain time. One commenter illustrated how confusing it is
to make arrangements to see a high school basketball game and have
dinner beforehand, when some of the family works on central time and
some on mountain time. People wrote in to say that they feel like they
live in a ``peninsula'' or ``pocket'' of mountain time and that their
lives would be simpler if they lived in the same time zone as
surrounding counties, the counties on three sides of Mercer County
being on central time.

Comments in Favor of Mountain Time

    About 100 comments from individuals and businesses in Mercer County
expressed support for mountain time. Comments voiced at the public
hearing and also mentioned in the written submissions conveyed concern
about children going to school in the dark. A high school teacher
explained that she does not want to walk to school in the dark.
    Several individuals said they found living and working in different
time zones to be very convenient. Some said that they enjoy finishing
work in central time and still having time to shop in Mercer County
where the businesses are still open. They can go to the drug store, the
post office, and the banks after work. Other comments stated that a
switch to central time would harm local businesses, because they would
no longer offer the convenience of being open after the workers on
central time, particularly those who work at the power plants, finish
the workday. Additional commenters said that working on central time
and having their children go to school on mountain time allows them to
be home when their children get out of school and to attend school
events without missing work. Several people enjoy that the evening TV
news comes on earlier in mountain time than in central time. Some of
the comments noted that Mercer County had been on mountain time
throughout its history, and that the inconveniences of living on a time
zone border (e.g., having two sets of clocks in the house) were things
people were used to and could easily live with.
    Many comments asserted that mountain time is much preferred by the
farmers and ranchers. Farmers were said to enjoy the extra daylight in
the morning hours provided by mountain time, because they can finish
their chores in time to attend evening events or to order parts from
suppliers.

Other Issues

    Close to 50 written comments, most of them anonymous, requested
that the matter be put to a vote, such as an advisory referendum on the
November 2010 ballot. As a Federal agency, DOT has no authority to tell
a county whether or not to hold a referendum, and it would be very
inappropriate for us to do so. In addition, even if Mercer County were
to hold a referendum on the time zone issue, the outcome of the vote
would not necessarily be determinative. Rather, the Department is
required to apply the statutory criteria set forth in the Uniform Time
Act.
    Finally, several comments called for an end to daylight saving time
observance in North Dakota. Under the Uniform time Act, State
governments may decide to opt out of observing daylight saving time for
all of the portion of a State in a given time zone. This issue is
therefore outside the scope of this rulemaking. Those interested in the
daylight saving time issue should explore the matter with their State
officials.

The Decision

    After weighing all the material in the record for this rulemaking,
DOT has decided to place all of Mercer County on central time. We find
that the proposed change requested by the County Commissioners suits
``the convenience of commerce.''
    We believe that the change to central time will benefit the
community in a variety of ways. Many individuals and businesses in
Mercer County look to areas in the central time zone for commercial,
health care, and transportation services. The change will improve
access to medical care by making it easier to attend appointments in
Bismarck. It will also simplify travel arrangements for those using the
Bismarck airport. Employees of the coal or electric power industry in
Mercer County, as well as those commuting to Bismarck-Mandan for work,
will be on the same schedule at home and at work. The change should aid
commerce by placing suppliers and businesses on the same schedule, thus
eliminating the shortened workday that has arisen for many businesses
in Mercer County. In addition, school children will no longer have to
miss extra instructional time when they participate in extracurricular
activities. Mercer County will now be in the same time zone as its main

television broadcasts and newspapers. Finally, having Mercer County on
central time should alleviate much of the confusion and scheduling
complexity that have become a part of many residents' daily lives.
    We understand that there are a number of individuals who are
satisfied with mountain time and that this change will not be an easy
transition for them. However, the Department is required to apply the
statutory criteria set forth in the Uniform Time Act, and the reasons
advanced by proponents of mountain time were fewer and considerably
less strong, with respect to the ``convenience of commerce'' criteria,
than those made by persons favoring the change.
    This decision will go into effect on November 7, 2010, at the same
time that North Dakota changes from daylight saving time to standard
time. Because the time zone change and the change from daylight saving
time to standard time will coincide, Mercer County residents and
organizations will not have to change their clocks this fall.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Department has determined that this action is not a significant
regulatory action for purposes of Executive Order 12866 or the
Department's regulatory policies and procedures. The rule primarily
affects the convenience of individuals in scheduling their activities.
It imposes no direct costs. Its impact is localized in nature,
affecting only the residents of, and people who do business in, a
single county. We expect the economic impact of this final rule to be
so minimal that full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the
regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary. While some
small entities (i.e., small business or governmental entities in Mercer
County) will be affected by setting their clocks differently than in
the past, the economic effects of doing so would not be significant,
and would largely be economically favorable to them. Therefore, the
Department certifies that the rule would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Federalism

    This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (``Federalism''). This
final rule does not have a substantial direct effect on, or sufficient
federalism implications for, the States, nor would it limit the
policymaking discretion of the States. Therefore, the consultation
requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.

Unfunded Mandates

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) and
E.O. 12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership (58 FR 58093;
October 28, 1993), govern the issuance of Federal regulations that
impose unfunded mandates. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that
requires a State, local, or Tribal government, or the private sector to
incur direct costs without the Federal Government having first provided
the funds to pay those costs. This rule does not impose an unfunded
mandate.

Protection of Children

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

Environment

    This rulemaking is not a major Federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment under the National
Environmental Policy Act and, therefore, an environmental impact
statement is not required.

Consultation With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000) requires DOT
to have an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by Tribal officials'' in the development of rules with Tribal
implications. The Fort Berthold Indian Reservation is located in Mercer
County. However, the Reservation already observes central time. This
rule helps the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation by placing the
surrounding areas in Mercer County in the same time zone as the
Reservation. Furthermore, the representatives of the Reservation did
not comment on the rule. This rule does not have substantial direct
effects on an Indian tribe, or on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
Therefore, this rule does not have Tribal implications and does not
preempt Tribal law.

Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
http://dms.dot.gov.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not create any information collection requirements
covered by the Paperwork Reduction Act.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 71

    Time zones.

    Issued this 20th day of September, 2010, at Washington, DC.
Ray LaHood,
Secretary of Transportation.

0
For reasons discussed in the preamble, the Office of the Secretary
amends Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 71, as
follows:

PART 71--STANDARD TIME ZONE BOUNDARIES

0
1. The authority citation for 49 CFR Part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: Secs. 1-4, 40 Stat. 450, as amended; sec. 1, 41 Stat.
1446, as amended; secs. 2-7, 80 Stat. 107, as amended; 100 Stat.
764; Act of Mar. 19, 1918, as amended by the Uniform Time Act of
1966 and Pub. L. 97-449, 15 U.S.C. 260-267; Pub. L. 99-359; Pub. L.
106-564, 15 U.S.C. 263, 114 Stat. 2811; 49 CFR 1.59(a), unless
otherwise noted.

0
2. Revise Sec.  71.7 (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  71.7  Boundary line between central and mountain zones.

    (a) Montana-North Dakota. Beginning at the junction of the Montana-
North Dakota boundary with the boundary of the United States and Canada
southerly along the Montana-North Dakota boundary to the Missouri
River; thence southerly and easterly along the middle of that river to
the midpoint of the confluence of the Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers;
thence southerly and easterly along the middle of the Yellowstone River
to the north boundary of T. 150 N., R. 104 W.; thence east to the
northwest corner of T. 150 N., R. 102 W.; thence south to the southwest
corner of T. 149 N., R. 102 W.; thence east to the northwest corner of
T. 148 N., R. 102 W.; thence south to the northwest corner of 147 N.,
R. 102 W.; thence east to the southwest corner

of T. 148 N., R. 101 W.; thence south to the middle of the Little
Missouri; thence easterly and northerly along the middle of that river
to the midpoint of its confluence with the Missouri River; thence
southerly and easterly along the middle of the Missouri River to the
midpoint of its confluence with the western land boundary of Mercer
County; thence south along the western county line of Mercer County to
the southwest boundary; thence east and south along the southwestern
county boundary of Morton County to the intersection with the boundary
with Sioux County; thence west and south along the northern boundary of
Sioux County to the center of State Highway 31; thence south along the
center of State Highway 31 to the State border with South Dakota;
thence east along the southern boundary of Sioux County in the middle
of the Missouri River.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-24376 Filed 9-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 175 (Friday, September 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 55903]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23018]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR11-125-000]

UGI Central Penn Gas, Inc.; Notice of Rate Election

    Take notice that on August 31, 2011, UGI Central Penn Gas, Inc.
(CPG) filed a Rate Election pursuant to section 284.123(b)(1) of the
Commission's regulations. CPG proposes to utilize the applicable
interruptible component of CPG's currently effective Extending Large
Firm Delivery Service rate contained in Rate XD on file with the
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, as more fully detailed in the
petition.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate filing must file in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken,
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 12, 2011.

    Dated: September 1, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-23018 Filed 9-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 152 (Thursday, August 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46298-46299]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18632]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Twenty Fifth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 216, Aeronautical
Systems Security

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Meeting Notice of RTCA Special Committee 216, Aeronautical
Systems Security.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the
twenty fifth meeting of RTCA Special Committee 216, Aeronautical
Systems Security.

DATES: The meeting will be held August 22, 2014 from 9:00 a.m.-5:00
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA Headquarters, 1150 18th
Street NW., Suite 450, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You may contact the RTCA Secretariat,
1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Web site http://www.rtca.org for directions.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of Special Committee 216.

August 22

     Open Meeting and Introductions.
     Approve Summary--Meeting  24, RTCA Paper No. 142-
14/SC216-053.
     Status of Revised DO-326--Airworthiness Security Process
Specification.
     Review/Approval--New Document--Security Assurance and
Assessment Methods for Safety-related Aircraft Systems--RTCA Paper No.
143-14/SC216-054.
     EUROCAE WG-72 Report.
     Work Group Reports.

     Terms of Reference--Discussion.
     Date, Place and Time of Next Meeting.
     New Business.
     Adjourn Plenary.
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 31, 2014.
Mohannad Dawoud,
Management Analyst, NextGen, Business Operations Group, Federal
Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2014-18632 Filed 8-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P