[Federal Register: May 28, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 103)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 29908-29914]
[DOCID:fr28my10-11]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0279; FRL-8828--6]

Prothioconazole; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for combined residues
of prothioconazole and prothioconazole-desthio, calculated as parent in
or on grain, cereal, group 15 (except sweet corn, sorghum, and rice),
and grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw, group 16 (except sweet
corn, sorghum, and rice) and sweet corn. Bayer CropScience requested
these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective May 28, 2010. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before July 27, 2010, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0279. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

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

B. How Can I Get Electronic Access to Other Related Information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR cite at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr. To
access the harmonized test guidelines referenced in this document
electronically, please go http://www.epa.gov/ocspp and select ``Test
Methods and Guidelines.''

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0279 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
July 27, 2010. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit this copy, identified by docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0279, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation

(8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of August 19, 2009 (74 FR 41898) (FRL-8426-
7), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
8F7485) by Bayer CropScience, P.O. Box 12014, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. The petition requested that 40 CFR
180.626 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the
fungicide prothioconazole, 2-[2-(1-chlorocyclopropyl)-3-(2-
chlorophenyl)-2-hydroxypropyl]-1,2-dihydro-3H-1,2,4-triazole-3-thion,
in or on grain, cereal, group 15, except sweet corn, sorghum and rice
at 0.35 parts per million (ppm); forage, cereal, group 16, except sweet
corn, sorghum and rice at 8.0 ppm; stover, cereal, group 16, except
sweet corn, sorghum and rice at 10 ppm; hay, cereal, group 16, except
sweet corn, sorghum and rice at 7.0 ppm; straw, cereal, group 16,
except sweet corn, sorghum and rice at 5.0 ppm; corn, sweet, forage at
7.0 ppm; corn, sweet, stover at 8.0 ppm; and corn, sweet, kernel plus
cob with husks removed at 0.02 ppm. That notice referenced a summary of
the petition prepared by Bayer CropScience, the registrant, which is
available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. A comment was
received on the notice of filing. EPA's response to the comment is
discussed in Unit IV.C.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
established and increased the proposed tolerance of 0.02 ppm for
combined residues in/on sweet corn to a higher tolerance of 0.04 ppm.
Further, EPA has modified crop group terminology and established
tolerances for grain, cereal, group 15, except sweet corn, sorghum, and
rice at 0.35 ppm; grain, cereal, group 16, except sorghum and rice;
forage at 8.0 ppm; grain, cereal, group 16, except sorghum and rice;
stover at 10 ppm; grain, cereal, group 16, except sorghum and rice; hay
at 7.0 ppm; grain, cereal, group 16, except sorghum and rice; straw at
5.0 ppm. With the establishment of the above tolerances, EPA has
revoked the following tolerances: barley, grain; barley, hay; barley,
straw; wheat, forage; wheat, grain; wheat, hay; and wheat, straw. EPA
is also not establishing the proposed tolerances for sweet corn forage
at 7 ppm and sweet corn stover at 8 ppm because the commodities will be
covered under grain, cereal, group 16; forage and stover. The reasons
for these changes are explained in Unit IV.D.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children. Prothioconazole has low acute toxicity by oral, dermal, and
inhalation routes. It is not a dermal sensitizer, or a skin or eye
irritant. Prothioconazole's metabolite, prothioconazole-desthio, also
has low acute toxicity by oral, dermal, and inhalation routes. It is
not a dermal sensitizer, or a skin irritant, but it is a slight eye
irritant. The subchronic and chronic studies show that the target
organs at the lowest observable adverse effects level (LOAEL) include
the liver, kidney, urinary bladder, thyroid and blood. In addition, the
chronic studies showed body weight and food consumption changes.
Prothioconazole and its metabolites may be primary developmental
toxicants, producing effects including malformations in the conceptus
at levels equal to or below maternally toxic levels in some studies,
particularly those studies conducted using prothioconazole-desthio.
Reproduction studies in the rat with prothioconazole and
prothioconazole-desthio suggest that these chemicals may not be primary
reproductive toxicants. Acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies were
conducted in the rat using prothioconazole. A developmental
neurotoxicity study was conducted in the rat using prothioconazole-
desthio.
    The available data show that the prothioconazole-desthio metabolite
produces toxicity at lower dose levels in subchronic, developmental,
reproductive, and neurotoxicity studies as compared with
prothioconazole and the two additional metabolites that were tested.
    The available carcinogenicity and/or chronic studies in the mouse
and rat, using both prothioconazole and prothioconazole-desthio, show
no increase in tumor incidence. Therefore, EPA has concluded that
prothioconazole and its metabolites are not carcinogenic, and are
classified as ``Not likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans'' according to
the 2005 Cancer Guidelines.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by prothioconazole as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://
www.regulations.gov in document ``Prothioconazole. Human Health Risk
Assessment for Proposed Section 3 Uses on Crop Group 15 and 16 (Cereal
Grains and Forage, Fodder and Straw of the Cereal Grains Group Except
Sweet Corn, Sorghum and Rice) and Sweet Corn,'' pages 14 to 17 in
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0279.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure and Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there

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

    Table--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Prothioconazole for Use in Human Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Point of Departure and
          Exposure/Scenario               Uncertainty/Safety     RfD, PAD, LOC for Risk  Study and Toxicological
                                               Factors                 Assessment                Effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary                          NOAEL = 2.0milligrams/   Acute RfD = 0.02 mg/kg/  Developmental Toxicity
(Females 13-49 years of age).........   kilograms/day (mg/kg/    day                      Study in Rabbits
                                        day)                    aPAD = 0.02 mg/kg/day..  LOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day
                                       UFA = 10x..............                            based on structural
                                       UFH = 10x..............                            alterations including
                                       FQPA SF = 1x...........                            malformed vertebral
                                                                                body and ribs,
                                                                                arthrogryposis, and
                                                                                multiple
                                                                                malformations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary                        NOAEL = 1.1 mg/kg/day    Chronic RfD = 0.01 mg/   Chronic/Oncogenicity
(All populations)....................  UFA = 10x..............   kg/day                   Study in Rats
                                       UFH = 10x..............  cPAD = 0.01 mg/kg/day..  LOAEL = 8.0 mg/kg/day
                                       FQPA SF = 1x...........                            based on liver
                                                                                histopathology
                                                                                (hepatocellular
                                                                                vacuolation and fatty
                                                                                change (single cell,
                                                                                centrilobular, and
                                                                                periportal)).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members
  of the human population (intraspecies). FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. PAD = population
  adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. Loc = level of concern.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to prothioconazole and its metabolites and/or degradates, EPA
considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all
existing prothioconazole tolerances in 40 CFR 180.626. EPA assessed
dietary exposures from prothioconazole in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
    In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption
information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996
and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals
(CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA conducted a moderately
refined acute dietary exposure assessment. Average field trial values
(because all of the crops included in this assessment are blended food
forms, except sweet corn), empirical processing factors, and livestock
maximum residues were incorporated into the refined acute assessment.
The assessment also assumed 100% crop treated (CT). Since no observed
effects would be attributable to a single dose exposure for the general
U.S. population, females 13 to 49 years of age was the only population
subgroup included in the acute assessment.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996
and 1998 CSFII. As to residue levels in food, EPA conducted a
moderately refined chronic dietary exposure assessment. Empirical
processing factors, average field trial residues, and livestock
commodity residues derived from feeding studies and a reasonably
balanced dietary burden (RBDB) were incorporated into the chronic
assessment; 100% crop treated was assumed.
    iii. Cancer. EPA determines whether quantitative cancer exposure
and risk assessments are appropriate for a food-use pesticide based on
the weight-of-the-evidence from cancer studies and other relevant data.
Cancer risk is quantified using a linear or non-linear approach. If
sufficient information on the carcinogenic mode of action is available,
a threshold or non-linear approach is used and a cancer RfD is
calculated based on an earlier non-cancer key event. If carcinogenic
mode of action data are not available, or if the mode of action data
determines a mutagenic mode of action, a default linear cancer slope
factor approach is utilized.
    Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that
prothioconazole is classified as ``Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to
Humans.'' Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of
assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and
information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in
food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been
measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require
pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after
the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect,
demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels
anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins
as are required by section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA and authorized under
section

408(f)(1) of FFDCA. Data will be required to be submitted no later than
5 years from the date of issuance of these tolerances. Average residues
and 100 PCT were assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for prothioconazole in drinking water. These simulation
models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/
transport characteristics of prothioconazole. Further information
regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure
assessment can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/
index.htm.
    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-
GROW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of
prothioconazole for the acute dietary risk assessment, the water
concentration value of 94.7 parts per billion (ppb) was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water. For the chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 84.3 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water. Modeled estimates of
drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary
exposure model.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    Prothioconazole is not registered for any specific use patterns
that would result in residential exposure.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    Prothioconazole is a member of the triazole-containing class of
pesticides, often referred to as the triazoles. EPA is not currently
following a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of
toxicity for the conazoles. The conazole pesticides, as a whole, tend
to exhibit carcinogenic, developmental, reproductive, and/or
neurological effects in mammals. Additionally, all the members of this
class of compounds are capable of forming, via environmental and
metabolic activities, 1,2,4-triazole, triazolylalanine and/or
triazolylacetic acid. These metabolites have also been shown to cause
developmental, reproductive, and/or neurological effects. That these
compounds, however, have structural similarities and share some common
effects does not alone show a common mechanism of toxicity. Evidence is
needed to establish that the chemicals operate by the same, or
essentially the same sequence of major biochemical events. A number of
potential events could contribute to the toxicity of conazoles (e.g.,
altered cholesterol levels, stress responses, altered DNA methylation).
At this time, there is not sufficient evidence to determine whether
conazoles share common mechanisms of toxicity. Without such
understanding, there is no basis to make a common mechanism of toxicity
finding for the diverse range of effects found. Investigations into the
conazoles are currently being undertaken by the EPA's Office of
Research and Development. When the results of this research are
available, the Agency will make a determination of whether there is a
common mechanism of toxicity and, therefore, a basis for assessing
cumulative risk. For information regarding EPA's procedures for
cumulating effects from substances found to have a common mechanism of
toxicity, see EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/
cumulative.
    To support existing tolerances and to establish new tolerances for
conazole pesticides, including prothioconazole, EPA conducted human
health risk assessments for exposure to 1,2 4-triazole,
triazolylalanine, and triazolylacetic acid resulting from the use of
all current and pending uses of triazole-containing pesticides (as of
9/1/05). The risk assessment is a highly conservative, screening-level
evaluation in terms of hazards associated with the common metabolites
(e.g., use of maximum combination of uncertainty factors) and potential
dietary and non-dietary exposures (i.e., high-end estimates of both
dietary and non-dietary exposures). Acute and chronic aggregate risk
estimates associated with these compounds are below the Agency's level
of concern for all durations of exposure and for all population
subgroups, including those of infants and children. The Agency's risk
assessment for these common metabolites is available in the
propiconazole reregistration docket at http://www.regulations.gov,
Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0497.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is evidence of
increased susceptibility following prenatal/or postnatal exposure in:
    i. Rat developmental toxicity studies with prothioconazole as well
as its prothioconazole-desthio and sulfonic acid K salt metabolites.
    ii. Rabbit developmental toxicity studies with prothioconazole-
desthio.
    iii. A rat developmental neurotoxicity study with prothioconazole-
desthio; and
    iv. Multi-generation reproduction studies in the rat with
prothioconazole-desthio. Effects include skeletal structural
abnormalities, such as cleft palate, deviated snout, malocclusion,
extra ribs, and developmental delays. Available data also show that the
skeletal effects such as extra ribs are not completely reversible after
birth in the rat, but persist as development continues.
    Although increased susceptibility was seen in these studies, the
Agency concluded that there is a low concern and no residual
uncertainties for prenatal and/or postnatal toxicity effects of
prothioconazole because:
     Developmental toxicity NOAELs and LOAELs from prenatal
exposure are well characterized after oral and dermal exposure;
     The off-spring toxicity NOAELs and LOAELs from postnatal
exposures are well characterized; and
     The NOAEL for the fetal effect, malformed vertebral body
and ribs, is used for assessing acute risk of females 13 years and
older and, because it is lower than the NOAELs in other developmental
studies, is protective of all potential developmental effects.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:

    i. The toxicity database for prothioconazole is considered
complete, with the exception of required functional immunotoxicity
testing. The Agency began requiring functional immunotoxicity testing
of all food and non-food use pesticides on December 26, 2007. Although
an immunotoxicity study in the mouse is part of the existing
prothioconazole toxicity database, this study as reported does not
satisfy the current guideline requirements for an immunotoxicity study
(OPPTS 870.7800). As such, EPA is requiring that an immunotoxicity
study be submitted which meets guideline requirements. EPA has
evaluated the available prothioconazole toxicity database (including
the non-guideline study in the mouse) to determine whether an
additional database uncertainty factor is needed to account for
potential immunotoxicity. In one chronic study in the rat (but not in
the mouse or dog), blood leukocyte counts were significantly elevated
at the high dose level (750 mg/kg/day) along with increased thrombocyte
counts and decreased hemoglobin. However, this finding is made in the
presence of toxicity to a broad range of organ systems such as the
liver, urinary bladder, kidney, thyroid, and decreased body weight
gains. In a chronic dog study, splenic effects (increased spleen weight
with pigmentation and/or fibrosiderotic plaques) were seen at 40 mg/kg/
day and above, but these effects are not considered to be indicative of
immunotoxicity, and occurred in the presence of toxicity to the liver,
kidney, thyroid, and decreased body weights. Furthermore, no signs of
immunotoxicity, such as changes in leukocyte counts and albumin/
globulin ratio, changes in thymus and spleen weights, or
histopathological changes in lymphoid tissues, were observed at dose
levels up to 400 mg/kg/day in the non-guideline immunotoxicity study in
the mouse. There appears to be no basis for concern for immunotoxicity,
particularly at the Points of Departure (POD) for prothioconazole and
its metabolites which, at 2.0 and 1.1 mg/kg/day (Acute and Chronic
Reference Dose (aRfD and cRfD), respectively) are two orders of
magnitude lower than the 400 and 750 mg/kg/day dose levels mentioned in
this Unit. This finding, along with the absence of immunotoxicity
observed in the subchronic and chronic studies with prothioconazole and
its metabolites supports the reduction of the FQPA factor to 1X in the
interim, pending receipt of an acceptable guideline immunotoxicity
study.
    ii. There is an acceptable battery of neurotoxicity studies
including a developmental neurotoxicity study. Although offspring
neurotoxicity was found, characterized by peripheral nerve lesions in
the developmental neurotoxicity studies on prothioconazole-desthio, the
increase was seen only in the highest dose group at 105 mg/kg/day, was
not considered treatment related, and a clear NOAEL was established for
this study.
    iii. Although increased susceptibility was seen in the
developmental and reproduction studies, the Agency concluded that there
is a low concern and no residual uncertainties for prenatal and/or
postnatal toxicity effects of prothioconazole for the reasons explained
in Unit III.D.2.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessment utilized empirical
processing factors, 100% crop treated, average crop field trial residue
levels, and livestock maximum residues. Results from ruminant feeding
studies and poultry metabolism studies were used to determine the
maximum residue levels for livestock commodities. The crop field trials
were performed using maximum application rates and minimum pre-harvest
intervals. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground
and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to prothioconazole
in drinking water. These assessments will not underestimate the
exposure and risks posed by prothioconazole.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    Based on the proposed and existing crop uses for prothioconazole,
dietary aggregate exposures (i.e., food plus drinking water) are
anticipated. There are no residential uses for prothioconazole and,
therefore, no residential exposures are anticipated. Consequently, only
dietary (food plus drinking water) exposures were aggregated for this
assessment.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to prothioconazole will occupy 38% of the aPAD for females 13 to 49
years of age, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
prothioconazole from food and water will utilize 21% of the cPAD for
the general U.S. population and 62% of the cPAD for all infants <1 year
old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. There are no
residential uses for prothioconazole.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Because there
is no residential exposure, prothioconazole is not expected to pose a
short-term risk.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level). Because there is no residential exposure, prothioconazole is
not expected to pose an intermediate-term risk.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, prothioconazole is not expected to pose a cancer risk to
humans.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to prothioconazole residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

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

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with

international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food
safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the
international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex
Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section
408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint U.N. Food and Agriculture
Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it
is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting
organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party.
EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL;
however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons
for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has established MRLs for residues of desthio-
prothioconazole in barley at 0.2 ppm (04/2010), and in oats, rye, and
wheat at 0.05 ppm each and in the fodder (dry) of cereal grains at 4
ppm and in the straw (dry) of cereal grains at 5 ppm. There are
currently no established Mexican MRLs for prothioconazole. Canadian
MRLs have been established for prothioconazole per se in/on several
commodities, including barley (0.35 ppm), wheat (0.07 ppm), meat
byproducts of cattle, goats, horses and sheep (0.2 ppm), meat
byproducts of hogs (0.05 ppm), liver of poultry (0.02 ppm), meat of
cattle, goats, horses, and sheep (0.02 ppm), and milk (0.02 ppm).
Harmonization of the proposed tolerances with the existing Codex for
prothioconazole is not possible at this time because of differences in
tolerance expression and use patterns. The MRL expression for Codex is
prothioconazole-desthio and is thus not compatible with the U.S.
tolerance definition, the sum of prothiocoanzole and prothioconazole-
desthio. Much of the Codex cereal grain supervised field trial data is
from Europe, where the use pattern is different resulting in lower
measured residues. The straw numerical value (5 ppm) is matched between
the U.S. and Codex.
    The tolerance definition for plant commodities in Canada were
recently changed (02/10/2010) and is now harmonized with the U.S.
residue definition. The barley tolerance of Canada agrees with the
recommended U.S. tolerance for cereal grains (except sweet corn,
sorghum, and rice) of 0.35 ppm. However, the Canadian tolerance for
wheat is lower (0.07 ppm) than the recommended U.S. group tolerance.
The 0.07 ppm value is the current U.S. tolerance value for wheat, but
will be replaced by the cereal grain group tolerance. Canada does not
routinely establish animal feed commodity tolerances, and therefore
there are no harmonization issues with forage, stover, hay, and straw.

C. Response to Comments

    One comment was received from an anonymous source objecting to
establishment of tolerances and stating that the Agency is not
protecting human health. The response contained no scientific data or
evidence to rebut the Agency's conclusion that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to
prothioconazole, including all anticipated dietary exposures and other
exposures for which there is reliable information.

D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    Prothioconazole tolerances for crop commodities listed in 40 CFR
180.626(a)(1) are expressed in terms of the combined residues of the
fungicide prothioconazole and prothioconazole-desthio, calculated as
parent. EPA has also revised the tolerance expression to clarify (1)
that, as provided in section 408(a)(3) of FFDCA, the tolerance covers
metabolites and degradates of prothioconazole not specifically
mentioned; and (2) that compliance with the specified tolerance levels
is to be determined by measuring only the specific compounds mentioned
in the tolerance expression.
    Tolerances are established for residues of prothioconazole, 2-[2-
(1-chlorocylcopropyl)-3-(2-chlorophenyl)-2-hydroxypropyl]-1,2-dihydro-
3H-1,2,4-triazole-3-thion, including its metabolites and degradates, in
or on the commodities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance
levels specified below is to be determined by measuring only
prothioconazole and its metabolite prothioconazole-desthio, or [alpha]-
(1-chlorocyclopropyl)-[alpha]-[(2-chlorophenyl)methyl]-1H-1,2,4-
triazole-1-ethanol, calculated as parent in or on the commodity.
    Tolerances are established for residues of prothioconazole, 2-[2-
(1-chlorocylcopropyl)-3-(2-chlorophenyl)-2-hydroxypropyl]-1,2-dihydro-
3H-1,2,4-triazole-3-thion, including its metabolites and degradates, in
or on the commodities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance
levels specified below is to be determined by measuring only
prothioconazole and its metabolites prothioconazole-desthio, or
[alpha]-(1-chlorocyclopropyl)-[alpha]-[(2-chlorophenyl)methyl]-1H-
1,2,4-triazole-1-ethanol, and conjugates that can be converted to these
two compounds by acid hydrolysis, calculated as parent in or on the
commodity.
    The proposed tolerance of 0.02 ppm for combined residues in/on
sweet corn K+CWHR should be increased to 0.04 ppm (reflecting the
combined limit of quantitation of 0.02 ppm each for prothioconazole and
prothioconazole-desthio).
    The proposed tolerances of 7 ppm for sweet corn forage and 8 ppm
for sweet corn stover should be removed. These commodities will be
covered by the tolerance for group 16 grain, cereal, forage and group
16, cereal, grain, stover, respectively.
    With the establishment of the requested crop group tolerances for
group 15 and 16, the established tolerances for the following
commodities are no longer necessary and should be removed: barley,
grain; barley, hay; barley, straw; wheat, forage; wheat, grain; wheat,
hay; and wheat, straw.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of
prothioconazole, 2-[2-(1-chlorocylcopropyl)-3-(2-chlorophenyl)-2-
hydroxypropyl]-1,2-dihydro-3H-1,2,4-triazole-3-thion, including its
metabolites and degradates, in or on grain, cereal, group 15, except
sweet corn, sorghum, and rice at 0.35 ppm; grain, cereal, group 16,
except sorghum and rice; forage at 8.0 ppm; grain, cereal, group 16,
except sorghum and rice; stover at 10 ppm; grain, cereal, group 16,
except sorghum and rice; hay at 7.0 ppm; grain, cereal, group 16,
except sorghum and rice; straw at 5.0 ppm.; corn, sweet, kernel plus
cob with husks removed at 0.04 ppm.
    Further, the EPA is revoking the following eight existing
tolerances because they are no longer needed as a result of this rule:
barley, grain; barley, hay; barley, straw; wheat, forage; wheat, grain;
wheat, hay; and wheat, straw. The EPA is also revising the
prothioconazole crop and animal tolerance expressions.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is
not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045,

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

VII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: May 21, 2010.
Daniel J. Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

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

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
0
2. Amend Sec.  180.626 as follows:
    a. Revise the introductory text to paragraph (a)(1).
    b. Remove from the table in paragraph (a)(1) existing entries for
barley, grain; barley, hay; barley, straw; wheat, forage; wheat, grain;
wheat, hay; and wheat, straw.
    c. Add alphabetically new commodities to the table in paragraph
(a)(1).
    d. Revise the introductory text to paragraph (a)(2).
    The added and revised text read as follows:

Sec.  180.626  Prothioconazole; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * * (1) Tolerances are established for residues of
prothioconazole, 2-[2-(1-chlorocylcopropyl)-3-(2-chlorophenyl)-2-
hydroxypropyl]-1,2-dihydro-3H-1,2,4-triazole-3-thion, including its
metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in the table
below. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified below is to be
determined by measuring only prothioconazole and its metabolite
prothioconazole-desthio, or [alpha]-(1-chlorocyclopropyl)-[alpha]-[(2-
chlorophenyl)methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole-1-ethanol, calculated as parent
in or on the commodity.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Commodity                        Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed......               0.04
                                * * * * *
Grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw, group 16,                   8.0
 except sorghum, and rice; forage....................
Grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw, group 16,                   7.0
 except sorghum, and rice; hay.......................
Grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw, group 16,                    10
 except sorghum, and rice; stover....................
Grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw, group 16,                   5.0
 except sorghum, and rice; straw.....................
Grain, cereal, group 15, except sweet corn, sorghum,                0.35
 and rice............................................
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Tolerances are established for residues of prothioconazole, 2-
[2-(1-chlorocylcopropyl)-3-(2-chlorophenyl)-2-hydroxypropyl]-1,2-
dihydro-3H-1,2,4-triazole-3-thion, including its metabolites and
degradates, in or on the commodities in the table below. Compliance
with the tolerance levels specified below is to be determined by
measuring only prothioconazole and its metabolites prothioconazole-
desthio, or [alpha]-(1-chlorocyclopropyl)-[alpha]-[(2-
chlorophenyl)methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole-1-ethanol, and conjugates that
can be converted to these two compounds by acid hydrolysis, calculated
as parent in or on the commodity.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2010-12922 Filed 5-27-10 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 58 (Tuesday, March 26, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18280-18285]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06756]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0148; FRL-9793-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Nevada; Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan; Reconsideration of
BART Compliance Date for Reid Gardner Generating Station

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; Notice of Reconsideration of Final Rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is granting reconsideration of the compliance date for the
Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) emission limits for oxides of
nitrogen (NOX) at the Reid Gardner Generating Station (RGGS)
promulgated in a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) on August 23, 2012.
EPA is also proposing to extend the compliance date for the
NOX emission limits applicable to Units 1, 2, and 3 at RGGS
by 18 months from January 1, 2015, to June 30, 2016. We seek comment
only on the aspects of the FIP specifically identified in this notice.
We are not opening for reconsideration any other provisions of our FIP
for RGGS or our partial approval of the Nevada Regional Haze SIP.

DATES: Comments must be submitted no later than May 28, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2013-0148, by one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    (2) Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (3) Mail or Deliver: Anita Lee (Air-2), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send an email directly to EPA, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. 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.
    Hearings: EPA intends to hold one or more public hearings to accept
oral and written comments on the proposed rulemaking. EPA will provide
notice and additional details related to the hearings in the Federal
Register, on our Web site, and in the docket.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region 9,
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While documents in the
docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at EPA Region 9

(e.g., maps, voluminous reports, copyrighted material), and some may
not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect
the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal
business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anita Lee, EPA Region 9, (415) 972-
3958<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we'', ``us'',
and ``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. Summary of Relevant EPA Actions
    B. Petition for Reconsideration
    C. Supplemental Information
II. EPA's Proposed Action
    A. Justification for Proposing to Extend Compliance Date
    B. Compliance Date Extension Does Not Interfere with Attainment
or Reasonable Further Progress
    C. Compliance Date Extension Does Not Interfere with Any Other
Applicable Requirement of the CAA
III. Administrative Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
13563
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations

I. Background

A. Summary of Relevant EPA Actions

    On December 13, 2011, EPA signed a final rule approving all aspects
of the Nevada Regional Haze SIP except for the state's BART
determination for reducing NOX emissions at RGGS.\1\ Due to
delays associated with publication of this final rule in the Federal
Register, the rule was not published until March 26, 2012.\2\ However,
an unofficial copy of the final rule was provided to all interested
parties soon after signature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Regional Haze Rule (RHR), BART, and the Nevada Regional
Haze SIP are described elsewhere in greater detail. See, for
example, EPA's proposed approval of the Nevada Regional Haze SIP on
June 22, 2011 (76 FR 36450).
    \2\ 77 FR 17334.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 22, 2012, the state of Nevada indicated by letter that it
intended to submit a SIP revision to EPA in September 2012, including
provisions to reduce the emission limit for Unit 3 at RGGS from 0.28
pounds of NOX per million British thermal units (lb/MMBtu)
to 0.20 lb/MMBtu and to require installation of controls on or before
June 30, 2016.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See letter dated March 22, 2012 from Michael Elges, Deputy
Administrator of the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, to
Deborah Jordan, Director of the Air Division at EPA Region 9, re:
Proposed Amendment to Nevada's 2009 Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 12, 2012, EPA proposed to partially approve and partially
disapprove the remaining portion of the Nevada Regional Haze SIP, i.e.,
Nevada's BART determination for reducing NOX emissions at
RGGS.\4\ EPA proposed approval of the NOX emission limit of
0.20 lb/MMBtu for Units 1 and 2. Because the state's intended SIP
revision to reduce the emission limit for Unit 3 had not yet been
submitted to EPA, we proposed, among other things, disapproval of the
NOX emission limit of 0.28 lb/MMBtu for Unit 3. EPA
concurrently proposed a FIP, generally consistent with the state's
intentions, including an emission limit for Unit 3 of 0.20 lb/MMBtu.
EPA's proposed FIP included a provision requiring compliance with the
BART emission limits within five years from promulgation of the final
rule. EPA held two public hearings on May 3, 2012 to take comment on
our proposed FIP. The comment period closed on June 4, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 77 FR 21896.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 23, 2012, EPA promulgated our final rule to approve in
part, disapprove in part, and implement a FIP for the disapproved
portions of the Nevada BART determination for RGGS.\5\ The preamble to
the final rule discusses in more detail our final action and the
comments we received during the comment period for our proposal. Based
on comments from EarthJustice, representing a consortium of eight non-
governmental organizations, that a 5-year compliance timeframe to meet
the NOX emission limit of 0.20 lb/MMBtu was excessive,\6\
EPA reevaluated the compliance date for our final rulemaking.
Notwithstanding an inaccurate statement in section I of the preamble to
our final rule,\7\ EPA noted in section II.K of the preamble that our
March 26, 2012 approval of the portions of the Nevada Regional Haze SIP
included the portion of the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC
445B.22096(2)(a)) requiring compliance with BART emission limits on
three power plants, including RGGS, ``[o]n or before January 1, 2015;
or (2) [n]ot later than 5 years after approval of Nevada's state
implementation plan for regional haze by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency Region 9, whichever comes first.'' \8\
Therefore, consistent with the compliance dates in the Nevada Regional
Haze SIP that EPA approved on March 26, 2012, EPA finalized a
compliance date in the FIP of January 1, 2015.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 77 FR 50936.
    \6\ See letter dated June 4, 2012 from Suma Peesapati,
EarthJustice, to Thomas Webb, EPA Region 9, re: Approval and
Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Nevada;
Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-
2011-0130).
    \7\ In section I of the preamble to the final rule, EPA
incorrectly stated that we did not take action on the schedules for
compliance for RGGS in our March 26, 2012 final rulemaking. See 77
FR 50936 (August 23, 2012).
    \8\ EPA's final rulemaking on March 26, 2012 approved portions
of the NAC, including ``445B.22096, excluding the NOX
emission limits and control types in sub-paragraph (1)(c).'' See
Table 1 in 40 CFR 52.1470(c).
    \9\ On October 11, 2012, the Nevada State Environmental
Commission adopted a revised regulation from the Nevada Division of
Environmental Protection that, among other things, extended the
compliance date for achieving BART emission limits for
NOX at RGGS from January 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016. See
information available at http://www.sec.nv.gov/main/hearing_1012.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Petition for Reconsideration

    On October 19, 2012, Nevada Energy (NV Energy, also known as Nevada
Power Company) filed a petition to the Administrator for
reconsideration of our August 23, 2012, final rule pursuant to section
307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA.\10\ The petition addresses one issue and
requests that EPA reconsider the compliance date of January 1, 2015,
for meeting the final NOX emission limits of 0.20 lb/MMBtu
on Units 1, 2 and 3 at RGGS. NV Energy asserts that (1) EPA erroneously
adopted a January 1, 2015, deadline for Reid Gardner Generating
Station, (2) EPA's decision to set the January 1, 2015, compliance date
without having proposed it deprived NV Energy of the ability to comment
on a shorter compliance period, and (3) EPA's adoption of the January
1, 2015, compliance date was arbitrary and capricious because EPA
failed to consider the impact of administrative

delays in issuing the final rule before setting the compliance
deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See letter dated October 19, 2012 from Samuel Boxerman,
Sidley Austin LLP representing Nevada Energy, to Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator, US EPA, re: Petition for Reconsideration of EPA's
Final Rule entitled, ``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality
Implementation Plans; Nevada; Regional Haze State and Federal
Implementation Plans; BART Determination for Reid Gardner Generating
Station.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Supplemental Information

    In a letter dated January 31, 2013, NV Energy submitted
supplemental information to EPA describing the steps necessary to
comply with the BART emission limits for NOX on Units 1, 2
and 3 at RGGS, including required regulatory approvals, design,
procurement, construction, commissioning, and testing of the new air
pollution controls that NV Energy would need to install to comply with
BART.\11\ Based on the amount of time required for the necessary steps,
NV Energy states that the January 1, 2015 deadline originally included
in the Nevada Regional Haze SIP, and finalized in EPA's FIP for RGGS,
is not achievable, but demonstrates that the affected units at RGGS
could meet the BART emission limits for NOX by June 30,
2016, based on an expeditious and compressed schedule for compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See letter dated January 31, 2013 from Starla Lacy,
Executive, Environmental, Health, and Safety at NV Energy to Anita
Lee, US EPA Region 9, re: Nevada Regional Haze State Implementation
Plan, Compliance Deadline for Units 1, 2, & 3 at Reid Gardner
Generating Station.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. EPA's Proposed Action

    In today's action, EPA is granting reconsideration of the
compliance date in our FIP for achieving the NOX emission
limits at RGGS and proposing to extend the compliance date by 18 months
from January 1, 2015, to June 30, 2016. EPA is granting reconsideration
of the compliance date based on one of the arguments provided by NV
Energy in the October 19, 2012, petition for reconsideration.
Specifically, EPA agrees that NV Energy may not have had an adequate
opportunity to comment on the final compliance date for the
NOX emission limits because we had proposed a 5-year period
for compliance. Therefore, EPA is granting the petition for
reconsideration from NV Energy.
    EPA is proposing to extend the compliance date based on our review
of the supplemental information NV Energy provided to EPA by letter
dated January 31, 2013. The information NV Energy submitted justifies
our proposed finding that compliance by January 2015 is not achievable,
and we are proposing to extend the compliance date for meeting the
NOX emission limits on Units 1, 2 and 3 at RGGS to June 30,
2016.

A. Justification for Proposing To Extend Compliance Date

    In its letter dated January 31, 2013, NV Energy sets forth its
plans to install multiple control technologies to meet emission limits
for NOX established as BART. NV Energy will install new
advanced low-NOX burners coupled with over fire air (LNB/
OFA), new selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) systems, and a new
neural network control system, as well as modify the existing burner
management system and combustion control system (BMS/CCS). NV Energy
has contracted with Sargent and Lundy (S&L), an engineering firm, to
develop and manage the installation of this BART air pollution control
project to reduce emissions of NOX at RGGS.
    This project, as documented in a Gantt chart created by S&L and
submitted to EPA by NV Energy, requires detailed engineering,
procurement, construction, commissioning, tuning, and testing of the
new control technologies, as well as regulatory approvals from the
Nevada Public Utilities Commission and Nevada Division of Environmental
Protection (NDEP).
    NV Energy states that, if all necessary activities were conducted
in sequence, final installation and operation of the new air pollution
controls would require 77 months (over six years); however, NV Energy
and S&L have developed a compressed 42-month (three and one-half year)
schedule set forth in the Gantt chart in order to complete the project
by June 30, 2016. In its letter, NV Energy states that as of December
31, 2012, it has invested $1.9 million on the project for engineering
and design, and intends to initiate engineering and procurement of the
LNB/OFA in early 2013.
    The LNB/OFA combustion controls reduce the amount of NOX
formed during combustion by controlling the airflow and temperature
during combustion.\12\ As such, the design of LNB/OFA must occur before
the design of the SNCR, a post-combustion control that requires
detailed fluid dynamic modeling of combustion to ensure that the
placement of nozzles to inject the ammonia or urea occurs at the most
appropriate locations (where the flue gas is within a prescribed
temperature range) to optimize emission reductions of
NOX.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See, for example, EPA's Technical Bulletin on
NOX formation and control, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/dir1/fnoxdoc.pdf.
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NV Energy further states that modifications to the existing BMS/CCS
first require a completed design for the LNB/OFA, and the
specifications for the neural network require knowledge of what
modifications will be made to the existing BMS/CCS. This information
means that, although some tasks can be conducted simultaneously, many
tasks are dependent on the completion of other tasks and must be staged
sequentially.
    The information provided by NV Energy shows that the design,
procurement, and fabrication of the multiple air pollution controls are
scheduled to occur from 2013 through 2015. Construction of controls on
Units 1, 2 and 3 is scheduled to be staged over 2015 and 2016,
including three to six months of pre-outage construction for each unit,
two-month outages for each unit, four-month periods for tuning, and
one-month periods for testing for each of the three units.
    In total, NV Energy expects to complete the installation of all air
pollution controls to meet the BART limits in 42 months, an average of
14 months per unit. The Institute of Clean Air Companies estimates that
the installation of SNCR typically requires 10 to 13 months, and
typical deployment of LNB requires six to eight months.\14\ The
combination of LNB and SNCR may then be expected to require 16 to 21
months. Based on the schedule provided by NV Energy and the anticipated
timeframe requiring an average of 14 months per unit for the design,
procurement, construction, commissioning, and testing of LNB/OFA, SNCR,
a neural network, and modifications to the BMS/CCS, EPA considers the
42-month schedule for RGGS to comply with the BART limits for
NOX to be as expeditious as practicable, and a deadline of
January 1, 2015 to be not practically achievable.\15\ Therefore, EPA is
proposing to extend the compliance timeframe for compliance with the
NOX limits of 0.20 lb/MMBtu at RGGS by 18 months, from
January 1, 2015, to June 30, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Institute of Clean Air Companies, Typical Installation
Timelines for NOX Emissions Control technologies on
Industrial Sources, December 4, 2006.
    \15\ Pursuant to CAA sections 169A(b)(2)(A and (g)(4), sources
must procure, install, and operate BART as expeditiously as
practicable, but in no event later than five years after the date of
approval of a SIP or promulgation of a FIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Compliance Date Extension Does Not Interfere With Attainment or
Reasonable Further Progress

    The CAA requires that any revision to an implementation plan shall
not be approved by the Administrator ``if the revision would interfere
with any

applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress * * * or any other applicable requirement of [the CAA].'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See section 110(l) of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has promulgated health-based standards, known as the national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), for seven pollutants, including
NO2, a component of NOX, and pollutants such as
ozone and particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 2.5
micrometers (PM2.5), that are formed in the atmosphere from
reactions between NOX and other pollutants.\17\ Using a
process that considers air quality data and other factors, EPA
designates areas as ``nonattainment'' if those areas cause or
contribute to violations of a NAAQS. Reasonable further progress, as
defined in section 171 of the CAA, is related to attainment and means
``such annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air
pollutant * * * for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the
applicable [NAAQS].''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The other pollutants are sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide,
lead, and PM10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    RGGS is located in Clark County, Nevada. Portions of Clark County
(the Las Vegas Valley) have previously been designated nonattainment
for PM10, carbon monoxide, and the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard. Clark County is now in attainment with the NAAQS for carbon
monoxide and ozone.\18\ RGGS is not located in the nonattainment areas
for PM10. The plans developed by Clark County, in part to
satisfy a requirement for redesignation from nonattainment to
attainment, and approved by EPA, do not rely on additional emission
reductions of NOX at RGGS to ensure continued attainment
with the carbon monoxide or the 1997 8-hour ozone standards. Therefore,
an 18-month extension, from January 1, 2015, to June 30, 2016, in the
compliance date for RGGS to meet the BART limit for NOX will
not interfere with attainment or reasonable further progress for any
air quality standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See: ``Determination of Attainment for PM10 for
the Las Vegas Valley Nonattainment Area, NV,'' 75 FR 45485 (August
3, 2012); ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and
Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of
Nevada; Redesignation of Las Vegas Valley to Attainment for the
Carbon Monoxide Standard,'' 75 FR 59090 (September 27, 2010); and
``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of Nevada;
Redesignation of Clark County to Attainment for the 1997 8-Hour
Ozone Standard,'' 78 FR 1149 (January 8, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Compliance Date Extension Does Not Interfere With Any Other
Applicable Requirement of the CAA

    The other requirements of the CAA that are applicable to RGGS are
the visibility protection requirements for class I Federal areas under
section 169A, i.e., BART and a long-term strategy for making reasonable
progress toward meeting the national goal of restoring visibility at
class I Federal areas to natural conditions.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ CAA section 169A(b)(2)(A) and (B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CAA requires that the procurement, installation, and operation
of BART be as expeditious as practicable but in no event later than
five years after the date of approval of a SIP or promulgation of a
FIP.\20\ Based on the information described in section II.B of this
notice, EPA is proposing to determine that a date of June 30, 2016, to
comply with the NOX limits previously determined as BART for
RGGS is as expeditious as practicable and within five years of the
effective date of EPA's FIP for RGGS.\21\ Therefore, the 18-month
extension we are proposing today will not interfere with the BART
compliance requirement of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ CAA sections 169A(b)(2)(A) and (g)(4).
    \21\ The effective date of the final FIP is September 24, 2012.
See 77 FR 50936 (August 23, 2012). Five years after the effective
date is September 24, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nevada's Regional Haze SIP included a long-term strategy for making
reasonable progress toward restoring visibility at the Jarbidge
Wilderness Area to natural conditions by 2064. The CAA defines long-
term as 10 to 15 years and Nevada's long-term strategy, submitted to
EPA in 2009, includes emission reductions and visibility improvements
that are expected by 2018.\22\ Because the proposed compliance date of
June 30, 2016, occurs within the period of the first long-term
strategy, i.e., prior to 2018, the 18-month extension we are proposing
will not interfere with the long-term strategy requirement of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See CAA section 169A(b)(2)(B) and Section 7 of the Nevada
Regional Haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review 13563

    This action proposes to extend the compliance date for a single
source. This type of action is exempt from review under Executive
Orders (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and EO 13563 (76 FR
3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Because the proposed action
merely extends a compliance date, it does not impose an information
collection burden and the Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed action on
small entities, I certify that this proposed action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The owner of the affected units at Reid Gardner Generating Station,
Nevada Energy, also known as Nevada Power Company, is not a small
entity and the extended compliance date being proposed today reduces
the burden on this entity in general. See Mid-Tex Electric Cooperative,
Inc. v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327 (DC Cir. 1985). We continue to be interested
in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and
welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2
U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires Federal agencies, unless otherwise
prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on
State, local, and tribal

governments and the private sector. Federal agencies must also develop
a plan to provide notice to small governments that might be
significantly or uniquely affected by any regulatory requirements. The
plan must enable officials of affected small governments to have
meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates and must
inform, educate, and advise small governments on compliance with the
regulatory requirements.
    This proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may
result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one
year. This rule merely proposes an 18-month extension of a compliance
date. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections
202 or 205 of UMRA.
    This proposed rule is also not subject to the requirements of
section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This proposed
rule does not impose regulatory requirements on any government entity.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or in the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This action proposes an 18-month
extension of a compliance date. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not
apply to this action.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action
from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Under Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), EPA
may not issue a regulation that has tribal implications, that imposes
substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by
statute, unless the federal government provides the funds necessary to
pay the direct compliance costs incurred by tribal governments, or EPA
consults with tribal officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation and develops a tribal summary impact statement.
    EPA has concluded that this proposed rule may have tribal
implications because the Reid Gardner Generating Station is located
adjacent to reservation lands of the the Moapa Band of Paiute Indians.
However, it will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on
tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law.
    EPA consulted with tribal officials early in the process of
developing regulations related to Reid Gardner Generating Station to
permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its development.
During the comment period for prior EPA actions related to the Nevada
Regional Haze SIP and EPA's FIP for RGGS, the Moapa Band of Paiute
Indians has raised concerns to EPA about the environmental impacts of
this facility. For those previous rulemakings, EPA consulted the Moapa
Band regarding these concerns and visited the reservation and the
facility. Additional details of our consultation with the Moapa Band
are provided in section IV.F of our final rulemaking published on
August 23, 2012 (77 FR 50936). For this proposed action to extend the
compliance date for NOX at RGGS by 18 months, we will
continue to consult with the Moapa Band as we proceed with this action.
    EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed
action from tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying
only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks,
such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the
potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO
13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended
to mitigate health or safety risks. This proposed action addresses
regional haze and visibility protection.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is exempt under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Pub L. No. 104-113, 12 (10) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by the VCS bodies.
The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through annual reports to
OMB, with explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable VCS.
    This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any VCS.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule, if finalized, will not
have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. This proposed rule does not change any applicable emission
limit for the Reid Gardner Generating Station. This proposed rule
merely extends the compliance date for a single pollutant by 18 months.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen Dioxide.

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

    Dated: March 15, 2013.
Bob Perciasepe,
Acting Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52, chapter I, title
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as
follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In section Sec.  52.1488 revise paragraph (f)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1488  Visibility protection.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (3) Compliance date. The owners and operators subject to this
section shall comply with the emission limitations and other
requirements of this section by June 30, 2016, and thereafter.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-06756 Filed 3-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 11, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55787-55788]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22301]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2011-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1222]

Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations for Clay County, FL, and
Incorporated Areas

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is withdrawing
its proposed rule concerning proposed flood elevation determinations
for Clay County, Florida, and Incorporated Areas.

DATES: This withdrawal is effective September 11, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-
1222, to 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>
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 October 6, 2011, FEMA published a
proposed rulemaking at 76 FR 62006, proposing flood elevation
determinations along one or more flooding sources in Clay County,
Florida. FEMA is withdrawing the proposed rulemaking and intends to

publish a Notice of Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations in the Federal
Register and a notice in the affected community's local newspaper
following issuance of a revised preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map
and Flood Insurance Study report.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4104; 44 CFR 67.4.

    Dated: September 3, 2012.
Sandra K. Knight,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2012-22301 Filed 9-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register: July 30, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 145)]
[Notices]
[Page 38003]
[DOCID:fr30jy09-54]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-1302-000]

Northwest Wind Partners, LLC; Notice of Filing

July 23, 2009.
    Take notice that, on July 10, 2009, Northwest Wind Partners, LLC
filed a replacement Attachment A to revise its June 16, 2009
application for market-based rate authority filing in the above-
captioned docket with information required under the Commission's
regulations. Such filing served to reset the filing date in this
proceeding.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 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 comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    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 14 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 July 31, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-18155 Filed 7-29-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P