[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 86 (Thursday, May 4, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 28545]
[FR Doc No: 2023-09423]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2023-0098; FRL-10582-02-OCSPP]

Certain New Chemicals or Significant New Uses; Statements of
Findings for February 2023

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires EPA to
publish in the Federal Register a statement of its findings after its
review of certain TSCA submissions when EPA makes a finding that a new
chemical substance or significant new use is not likely to present an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. Such
statements apply to premanufacture notices (PMNs), microbial commercial
activity notices (MCANs), and significant new use notices (SNUNs)
submitted to EPA under TSCA. This document presents statements of
findings made by EPA on such submissions during the period from
February 1, 2023 to February 28, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2023-0098, is available online
at https://www.regulations.gov or in-person at the Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection
Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg.,
Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading
Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading
Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is
(202) 566-0280. For the latest status information on EPA/DC services
and docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical information contact: Rebecca Edelstein, New Chemical
Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER> email address:
[email protected].
    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action provides information that is directed to the public in
general.

B. What action is the Agency taking?

    This document lists the statements of findings made by EPA after
review of submissions under TSCA section 5(a) that certain new chemical
substances or significant new uses are not likely to present an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. This document
presents statements of findings made by EPA during the reporting
period.

C. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    TSCA section 5(a)(3) requires EPA to review a submission under TSCA
section 5(a) and make one of several specific findings pertaining to
whether the substance may present unreasonable risk of injury to health
or the environment. Among those potential findings is that the chemical
substance or significant new use is not likely to present an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment per TSCA
section 5(a)(3)(C).
    TSCA section 5(g) requires EPA to publish in the Federal Register a
statement of its findings after its review of a submission under TSCA
section 5(a) when EPA makes a finding that a new chemical substance or
significant new use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk of
injury to health or the environment. Such statements apply to PMNs,
MCANs, and SNUNs submitted to EPA under TSCA section 5.
    Anyone who plans to manufacture (which includes import) a new
chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose and any
manufacturer or processor wishing to engage in a use of a chemical
substance designated by EPA as a significant new use must submit a
notice to EPA at least 90 days before commencing manufacture of the new
chemical substance or before engaging in the significant new use.
    The submitter of a notice to EPA for which EPA has made a finding
of ``not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or
the environment'' may commence manufacture of the chemical substance or
manufacture or processing for the significant new use notwithstanding
any remaining portion of the applicable review period.

D. Does this action have any incremental economic impacts or paperwork
burdens?

    No.

II. Statements of Findings Under TSCA Section 5(a)(3)(C)

    In this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent
that such information is not claimed as Confidential Business
Information (CBI)) on the PMNs, MCANs and SNUNs for which, during this
period, EPA has made findings under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C) that the
new chemical substances or significant new uses are not likely to
present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment:
    The following list provides the EPA case number assigned to the
TSCA section 5(a) submission and the chemical identity (generic name if
the specific name is claimed as CBI).
     P-22-0051, 2,5-Furandione, dihydro-, monopolyisobutylene
derivs., reaction products with substituted alkylamine (Generic Name).
    To access EPA's decision document describing the basis of the ``not
likely to present an unreasonable risk'' finding made by EPA under TSCA
section 5(a)(3)(C), look up the specific case number at https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca/chemicals-determined-not-likely.
    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: April 27, 2023.
Shari Barash,
Acting Director, New Chemicals Division, Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics.
[FR Doc. 2023-09423 Filed 5-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 8, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 130)]
[Notices]
[Page 39288]
[DOCID:fr08jy10-122]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 607; SEC File No. 270-561; OMB Control No. 3235-0634.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget a request for extension of the previously
approved collection of information discussed below.
    Regulation E (17 CFR 230.601-230.610a) provides a conditional
exemption from the registration provisions of the Securities Act of
1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.) (``Securities Act'') for securities of
small business investment companies (``SBICs'') and investment
companies that elect to be treated as business development companies
(``BDCs''). Regulation E was initially adopted in 1958 and made
available to SBICs pursuant to Section 3(c) of the Securities Act.
Section 3(c) of the Securities Act generally permits the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') to add to the securities exempted
from the Securities Act by Section 3 any class of securities issued by
an SBIC. In 1984, pursuant to Section 3(b) of the Securities Act,
Regulation E was amended to permit the availability of the exemption to
BDCs. Section 3(b) of the Securities Act generally permits the
Commission to add any class of securities to the securities exempted
from the Securities Act by Section 3.
    Regulation E allows the exemption of securities issued by an SBIC
which is registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940
(``Investment Company Act'') (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.) or a closed-end
investment company that has elected to be regulated as a BDC under the
Investment Company Act from registration under the Securities Act, so
long as the aggregate offering price of all securities of the issuer
that may be sold within a 12-month period does not exceed $5,000,000
and certain other conditions are met.
    Rule 607 (17 CFR 230.607) entitled, ``Sales material to be filed,''
requires that sales material used in connection with securities
offerings under Regulation E to be filed with the Commission at least
five days (excluding weekends and holidays) prior to its use.
Respondents to this collection of information include SBICs and BDCs
making an offering of securities under Regulation E. Each respondent's
reporting burden under rule 607 relates to the burden associated with
filing its sales material electronically. The burden of filing
electronically, however, is negligible and there have been no filings
made under this rule, so this collection of information does not impose
any burden on the industry. However, we are requesting one annual
response and an annual burden of one hour for administrative purposes.
The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for purposes of the
Paperwork Reduction Act and is not derived from a quantitative,
comprehensive, or even representative survey or study of the burdens
associated with Commission rules and forms.
    The requirements of this collection of information are mandatory.
Responses will not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
    Please direct general comments regarding the above information to
the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive
Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or send an e-mail to Shagufta
Ahmed at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Charles Boucher,
Director/CIO, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley
Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an e-
mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within
30 days of this notice.

    Dated: June 30, 2010.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-16547 Filed 7-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: July 6, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 128)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 38753-38754]
[DOCID:fr06jy10-18]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0588 Airspace Docket No. 10-AAL-16]

Proposed Revision of Class E Airspace; Tanana, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to revise Class E airspace at Tanana, AK.
The amendment of Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) at
Ralph M. Calhoun Memorial Airport have made this action necessary to
enhance safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)
operations.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 20, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal to the Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-
0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-2010-0588/Airspace Docket
No. 10-AAL-16 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit
comments on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review
the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and
any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket
Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527) is on the plaza level of the
Department of Transportation NASSIF Building at the above address.
    An informal docket may also be examined during normal business
hours at the office of the Manager, Safety, Alaska Flight Service
Operations, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box
14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Rolf, Federal Aviation
Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587;
telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet address: http://www.faa.gov/about/
office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/systemops/fs/
alaskan/rulemaking/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2010-0588/
Airspace Docket No. 10-AAL-16.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://
www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_
amendments/.
    Additionally, any person may obtain a copy of this notice by
submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of
Air Traffic Airspace Management, ATA-400, 800 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20591 or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Communications must
identify both docket numbers for this notice. Persons interested in
being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the
FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>, to request a copy of
Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution
System, which describes the application procedure.

The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR) part 71 by revising Class E airspace at Ralph M. Calhoun
Memorial Airport, in Tanana, AK, to accommodate amended SIAPs at Ralph
M. Calhoun Memorial Airport. This Class E airspace would provide
adequate controlled airspace upward from 700 feet and 1,200 feet above
the surface, for the safety and management of IFR operations at Ralph
M. Calhoun Memorial Airport.
    The Class E airspace areas designated as 700/1,200 foot transition
areas are published in paragraph 6005 in FAA Order 7400.9T, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 27, 2009, and
effective September 15, 2009, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document
would be subsequently published in the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Because this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule,

when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle 1, section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
subtitle VII, part A, subpart 1, section 40103, Sovereignty and use of
airspace. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing
regulations to ensure the safe and efficient use of the navigable
airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because
it proposes to revise Class E airspace at Ralph M. Calhoun Memorial
Airport, Tanana, AK, and represents the FAA's continuing effort to
safely and efficiently use the navigable airspace.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9T, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, signed August 27, 2009, and effective September 15,
2009, is to be amended as follows:
* * * * *

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Extending Upward From 700 Feet or
More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AAL AK E5 Tanana, AK [Revised]

Ralph M. Calhoun Memorial Airport, AK
    (Lat. 65[deg]10'28'' N., long. 152[deg]06'34'' W.)
Tanana VOR/DME
    (Lat. 65[deg]10'38'' N., long. 152[deg]10'39'' W.)
Bear Creek NDB
    (Lat. 65[deg]10'26'' N., long. 152[deg]12'22'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of the Ralph M. Calhoun Memorial Airport,
AK, and within 4 miles north and 8 miles south of the 250[deg]
bearing of the Bear Creek NDB extending from the Bear Creek NDB to
16 miles west of the Bear Creek NDB, and within 1.4 miles north of
the Tanana VOR/DME 276[deg] radial extending from the 6.4-mile
radius to 8.8 miles west of the airport; and that airspace extending
upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 73-mile radius of
the Ralph M. Calhoun Memorial Airport, AK.

    Issued in Anchorage, AK, on June 22, 2010.
Anthony M. Wylie,
Manager, Alaska Flight Services Information Area Group.
[FR Doc. 2010-16249 Filed 7-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: August 19, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 161)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 48290-48292]
[DOCID:fr19au08-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0622; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-064-AD;
Amendment 39-15642; AD 2008-17-04]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
(Jetstream) Model 4101 Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation

product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    Resulting from the assessment of fuel tank wiring installations
required by SFAR 88 (Special Federal Aviation Regulation 88) and
equivalent JAA/EASA (Joint Aviation Authorities/European Aviation
Safety Agency) policy, BAE Systems identified * * * features in the
Jetstream 4100 where the need for design changes was apparent. * * *
    Internal fuel tank wiring chafing damage, if not corrected,
could lead to ignition of fuel vapours and subsequent fuel tank
explosion.
* * * * * * *
    We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective September 23, 2008.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September
23, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1175; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on June 9, 2008 (73 FR
32488). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    Resulting from the assessment of fuel tank wiring installations
required by SFAR 88 (Special Federal Aviation Regulation 88) and
equivalent JAA/EASA (Joint Aviation Authorities/European Aviation
Safety Agency) policy, BAE Systems identified two features in the
Jetstream 4100 where the need for design changes was apparent. One
of these is addressed by Service Bulletin (SB) J41-28-014 which
introduces changes to the wiring harness installations to the left
(LH) and right (RH) fuel boost pumps, identified by modification
number JM41672. In addition, to detect excessive cable lengths and
evidence of chafing damage, SB J41-28-014 provides instructions to
inspect and correct, as necessary, the internal fuel tank wiring
routed to the LH and RH high level sensors.
    Internal fuel tank wiring chafing damage, if not corrected,
could lead to ignition of fuel vapours and subsequent fuel tank
explosion.
    For the reason stated above, this EASA Airworthiness Directive
(AD) requires the replacement of the (LH and RH) fuel boost pump
metallic conduit assemblies with loom assemblies and the inspection
of internal fuel tank high level sensor wiring, including corrective
actions, as necessary.

    Corrective actions include replacing any damaged internal fuel tank
high level sensor wiring and removing excess wiring. You may obtain
further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences
are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 7 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take 47 work-hours per product to comply
with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $80
per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $7,000 per product. Where
the service information lists required parts costs that are covered
under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these
parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties,
some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be
$75,320, or $10,760 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2008-17-04 BAE Systems (Operations) Limited (Formerly British
Aerospace Regional Aircraft): Amendment 39-15642. Docket No. FAA-
2008-0622; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-064-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective
September 23, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Model Jetstream 4101 airplanes, certificated in any category, all
serial numbers.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28: Fuel.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    Resulting from the assessment of fuel tank wiring installations
required by SFAR 88 (Special Federal Aviation Regulation 88) and
equivalent JAA/EASA (Joint Aviation Authorities/European Aviation
Safety Agency) policy, BAE Systems identified two features in the
Jetstream 4100 where the need for design changes was apparent. One
of these is addressed by Service Bulletin (SB) J41-28-014 which
introduces changes to the wiring harness installations to the left
(LH) and right (RH) fuel boost pumps, identified by modification
number JM41672. In addition, to detect excessive cable lengths and
evidence of chafing damage, SB J41-28-014 provides instructions to
inspect and correct, as necessary, the internal fuel tank wiring
routed to the LH and RH high level sensors.
    Internal fuel tank wiring chafing damage, if not corrected,
could lead to ignition of fuel vapours and subsequent fuel tank
explosion.
    For the reason stated above, this EASA Airworthiness Directive
(AD) requires the replacement of the (LH and RH) fuel boost pump
metallic conduit assemblies with loom assemblies and the inspection
of internal fuel tank high level sensor wiring, including corrective
actions, as necessary.

    Corrective actions include replacing any damaged internal fuel
tank high level sensor wiring and removing excess wiring.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done: Within 24 months after the effective
date of this AD, do the following actions.
    (1) Modify the LH and RH wing fuel boost pump wiring in
accordance with paragraphs 2.B. and 2.C. of the Accomplishment
Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Service Bulletin
J41-28-014, Revision 1, dated December 21, 2007.
    (2) Inspect the LH and RH wing fuel high level sensor wiring in
accordance with paragraph 2.D. of the Accomplishment Instructions of
BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Service Bulletin J41-28-014,
Revision 1, dated December 21, 2007.
    (3) When excess wiring and/or damaged wiring is found during the
inspection required by paragraph (f)(2) of this AD, before next
flight, accomplish the corrective actions as specified in paragraph
2.D. of the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations)
Limited Service Bulletin J41-28-014, Revision 1, dated December 21,
2007.

FAA AD Differences

    Note:
    This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as
follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Todd
Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2008-0041, dated
February 27, 2008; and BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Service
Bulletin J41-28-014, Revision 1, dated December 21, 2007; for
related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Service
Bulletin J41-28-014, Revision 1, dated December 21, 2007, to do the
actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
British Aerospace Regional Aircraft American Support, 13850 Mclearen
Road, Herndon, Virginia 20171.
    (3) You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information
on the availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-
locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 5, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-18810 Filed 8-18-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 250 (Monday, December 31, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 77073]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31367]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER13-587-000]

Carson Cogeneration Company; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding,
of Carson Cogeneration Company's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability is January 10, 2013.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also 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 email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 21, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-31367 Filed 12-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 175 (Friday, September 9, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55804-55807]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23159]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0496; FRL-8881-6]

Dicamba; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of dicamba
in or on teff, forage; teff, grain; teff, straw; and teff, hay.
Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these
tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective September 9, 2011. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before November 8, 2011,
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-2010-0496. 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: Laura Nollen, 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 site at http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl. 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. How 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-2010-0496 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
November 8, 2011. 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. Information not marked

confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit a copy of your non-CBI objection or
hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0496,
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 October 22, 2010 (75 FR 65321) (FRL-
8851-1), 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
0E7779) by IR-4, 500 College Rd. East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ 08540.
The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.227 be amended by establishing a
tolerance for residues of the herbicide dicamba, 3,6-dichloro-o-anisic
acid, and its metabolite 3,6-dichloro-5-hydroxy-o-anisic acid (5-OH
dicamba), in or on teff, forage at 90.0 parts per million (ppm); teff,
grain at 6.0 ppm; teff, straw at 30.0 ppm; and teff, hay at 40.0 ppm.
That notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared on behalf of
IR-4 by Helena Chemical Company, the registrant, which is available in
the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received
in response to the notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
revised the tolerance expression for all established commodities to be
consistent with current Agency policy. The reason for this change is
explained in Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue.''
    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors
specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to
make a determination on aggregate exposure for dicamba including
exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action.
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with dicamba
follows.
    In the Federal Register of April 2, 2008 (73 FR 17914) (FRL-8356-
6), EPA published a final rule establishing tolerances for combined
residues of the herbicide dicamba, 3,6-dichloro-o-anisic acid, and its
metabolite, 3,6-dichloro-5-hydroxy-o-anisic acid in or on corn, sweet,
forage at 0.50 ppm; corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed
0.04 ppm; and corn, sweet, stover at 0.50 ppm, based on EPA's
conclusion that aggregate exposure to dicamba is safe for the general
population, including infants and children. Since 2008, there have been
no additional tolerance actions for dicamba.
    As noted in this unit, the current action concerns a tolerance for
dicamba on teff. Teff is an intermediate grass that is morphologically
and taxonomically similar to other cereal grains, including wheat. It
is used to make flour in a manner similar to wheat and other cereal
grains. EPA recently assessed the proposed use of dicamba on teff. In
that assessment, EPA determined that aggregate dicamba exposures and
risks will not increase as a result of the addition of the proposed
teff uses to the uses assessed as part of the 2008 rulemaking. Teff is
not included in the Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals
(CSFII). However, because it is used to make flour in a manner similar
to wheat and other cereal grains, it will likely substitute in the diet
for cereal grain foods which will contain similar residues of dicamba;
therefore, a significant increase in dietary exposure to residues of
dicamba from consumption of teff-containing foods will not occur.
Furthermore, residues of dicamba in teff livestock feeds will be
similar to those in other forages, hays, and silages for which
tolerances of dicamba are currently established. As such, there would
be no increase in the livestock dietary burden should teff be
substituted in the livestock diet for other hays and silages; residues
in meat, milk, poultry and eggs will remain the same.
    Further information about EPA's risk assessment and determination
of safety for this action can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in
document ``2,4-D and Dicamba: Petition for the Establishment of
Tolerances on Teff; Request for Registration of Latigo (EPA Reg. No.
5905-564) on Teff.'' in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0496. Except
as supplemented by the information described in this unit, EPA is
relying on the safety finding in the 2008 rulemaking and the risk
assessment underlying that action in establishing the tolerances for
dicamba on teff, forage; teff, grain; teff, straw; and teff, hay.
Further information regarding the safety finding for the last
rulemaking can be found in the Federal Register of April 2, 2008 (73 FR
17917) (FRL-8356-6), at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2008/April/Day-02/p6674.htm.
    For the 2008 rulemaking, the toxicity database was considered
complete. However, recent changes to 40 CFR part 158 imposed new data
requirements for immunotoxicity testing (OPPTS Guideline 870.7800) and
acute and subchronic neurotoxicity testing (OPPTS Guideline 870.6200)
for pesticide registration. The toxicity database for dicamba includes
acceptable acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies; therefore, the
requirements for the neurotoxicity screening battery have been met.
Additionally, an immunotoxicity study was recently submitted and is
currently under review. A screening level review of this study
indicates that no effects, including immunotoxic effects, were observed
at the highest dose tested of approximately 307 milligrams/
kilograms(mg/kg/day). This value is higher than the doses currently
used for risk assessment; therefore, risk assessment endpoints will not
change and the toxicity database is considered complete.
    Based upon the 2008 rulemaking and the other information discussed
in this unit, EPA concludes that there is a

reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general
population, and to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to
dicamba residues. Refer to the April 2, 2008 (73 FR 17914) (FRL-8356-6)
Federal Register document, available at http://www.regulations.gov, for
a detailed discussion of the aggregate risk assessments and
determination of safety. EPA relies upon those risk assessments and the
findings made in the Federal Register document in support of this
action.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodologies, Methods I and II--gas
chromatography with electron capture detection (GC/ECD), are available
to enforce the tolerance expression. The methods are published in the
Pesticide Analytical Manual (PAM) Volume II. 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 not established MRLs for dicamba in or on commodities
associated with this action.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    The EPA has revised the tolerance expression to clarify:
    1. That, as provided in FFDCA section 408(a)(3), the tolerance
covers metabolites and degradates of dicamba 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.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of dicamba, 3,6-
dichloro-o-anisic acid, including its metabolites and degradates, in or
on teff, forage at 90.0 ppm; teff, grain at 6.0 ppm; teff, straw at
30.0 ppm; and teff, hay at 40.0 ppm.

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) (Pub. L. 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: August 31, 2011.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Section 180.227 is amended by revising the introductory text in
paragraphs (a)(1), (2), and (3); and alphabetically adding the
following commodities to the table in paragraph (a)(1) to read as
follows:

Sec.  180.227  Dicamba; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. (1) Tolerances are established for the residues of the
herbicide dicamba (3,6-dichloro-o-anisic

acid), including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the
commodities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance levels is
to be determined by measuring only the sum of the residues of dicamba
(3,6-dichloro-o-anisic acid) and its metabolite, 3,6-dichloro-5-
hydroxy-o-anisic acid, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of
dicamba, in or on the following commodities:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Parts per
                          Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Teff, forage................................................        90.0
Teff, grain.................................................         6.0
Teff, hay...................................................        40.0
Teff, straw.................................................        30.0

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (2) Tolerances are established for residues of the herbicide
dicamba, 3,6-dichloro-o-anisic acid, including its metabolites and
degradates, in or on the commodities in the table below. Compliance
with the tolerance levels is to be determined by measuring only the
residues of dicamba (3,6-dichloro-o-anisic acid) and its metabolite,
3,6-dichloro-2-hydroxybenzoic acid, calculated as the stoichiometric
equivalent of dicamba, in or on the following commodities:
* * * * *
    (3) Tolerances are established for residues of the herbicide
dicamba, 3,6-dichloro-o-anisic acid, including its metabolites and
degradates, in or on the commodities in the table below. Compliance
with the tolerance levels is to be determined by measuring only the
residues of dicamba, 3,6-dichloro-o-anisic acid, and its metabolites,
3,6-dichloro-5-hydroxy-o-anisic acid, and 3,6-dichloro-2-hydroxybenzoic
acid, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of dicamba, in or on
the following commodities:
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-23159 Filed 9-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 205 (Tuesday, October 25, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 64513]
[FR Doc No: 2022-23140]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4671-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2022-0001]

Puerto Rico; Amendment No. 8 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (FEMA-4671-DR), dated September 21,
2022, and related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued September 29, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is hereby amended to include
permanent work under the Public Assistance program for those areas
determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a
major disaster by the President in his declaration of September 21,
2022.

    The municipalities of Arecibo, Arroyo, Cabo Rojo, Guayanilla,
Jayuya, Salinas, San Germ[aacute]n, Toa Alta, and Utuado for
permanent work [Categories C-G] (already designated for Individual
Assistance and assistance for debris removal and emergency
protective measures [Categories A and B], including direct federal
assistance, under the Public Assistance program).

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2022-23140 Filed 10-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 247 (Thursday, December 27, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66658-66660]
[FR Doc No: 2018-28117]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0512; FRL-9988-53-Region 9]

Air Plan Approval; California; Mojave Desert Air Quality
Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District
(MDAQMD or ``District'') portion of the California State Implementation
Plan (SIP). These revisions concern emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) from wood products coating operations and organic
solvent degreasing operations. We are proposing to approve local rules
to regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the
Act). We are also proposing to approve revisions to a definitions rule.
Finally, we are proposing to convert the partial conditional approval
of the District's reasonably available control technology (RACT) SIPs
for the 1997 and 2008 ozone standards, as it applies to VOC emissions
from wood products coating operations and organic solvent degreasing
operations, to a full approval. We are taking comments on this proposal
and plan to follow with a final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by January 28, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2018-0512 at http://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish
any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically
any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Levin, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-
3848<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the
EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules
    D. Public Comment and Proposed Action
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates
that they were adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB).

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Local agency                 Rule #               Rule title              Amended        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MDAQMD.............................            1114  Wood Products Coating             1/22/2018       5/23/2018
                                                      Operations.
MDAQMD.............................            1104  Organic Solvent Degreasing        4/23/2018       7/16/2018
                                                      Operations.
MDAQMD.............................             102  Definition of Terms........       4/23/2018       8/22/2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 19, 2018, the EPA determined that the submittals for
MDAQMD Rules 1114 and 1104 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part
51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review. On September
24, 2018, the EPA determined that the submittal for MDAQMD Rule 102 met
the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V.

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    We approved an earlier version of Rule 1114 into the SIP on August
18, 1998 (63 FR 44132).\1\ We approved an earlier version of Rule 1104
into the SIP on April 30, 1996 (61 FR 18962).\2\ We approved an earlier
version of Rule 102 into the SIP on November 27, 1990 (55 FR 49281) for
the San Bernardino portion of the MDAQMD. We approved amendments to
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 102 into the
SIP on March 28, 1979 (44 FR 18491). On June 9, 1982 (47 FR 25013), we
approved a revision to the SIP, making the SCAQMD rules applicable in
Riverside County. Accordingly, SCAQMD Rule 102, as modified November 4,
1977, and approved on March 28, 1979, is the current definitions rule
for the Riverside portion of the MDAQMD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On July 1, 1994 the Palo Verde Valley area left the South
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and became part of
the MDAQMD. The EPA's April 30, 1996 (61 FR 18962) approval of Rule
1114, amended February 22, 1995, constituted a new SIP rule for the
San Bernardino portion of MDAQMD, and replaced SCAQMD Rule 1136--
Wood Products Coatings, amended August 2, 1991 (59 FR 17697, April
14, 1994), for the Palo Verde Valley portion of the District. EPA's
August 18, 1998 approval of MDAQMD Rule 1114, amended November 25,
1996, replaced the February 22, 1995 version for the entire
District.
    \2\ The District's submittal requests that the amended version
of Rule 1104 supersede both the existing version of Rule 1104, and
the December 20, 1993 (58 FR 66285) version of SCAQMD Rule 1171
(August 2, 1991), which is applicable in the Riverside portion of
the MDACMD. Rule 1104 Staff Report at 9-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?

    Volatile organic compounds help produce ground-level ozone, smog,
and particulate matter, which harm human health and the environment.
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that
control VOC emissions. Rule 1114 establishes VOC content limits for
coatings and adhesives used on new wood products and used for
refinishing, repairing, preserving, or restoring wood products. It
establishes requirements for application methods, surface preparation
and cleanup, add-on control systems, and work practices. The rule
includes test methods, and recordkeeping and monitoring requirements.
The rule revisions include lower VOC limits for several coatings and
cleaning solvents, and a higher minimum control efficiency for add-on
controls. Rule 1104 establishes VOC emission limits for wipe cleaning
and degreasing operations using organic solvents. It establishes
requirements for VOC content in cleaning solvents, control equipment,
cleaning equipment and methods, and operations. The rule includes test
methods, and administrative and recordkeeping requirements. The rule
revisions include a lower VOC limit for solvent cleaning, a higher
minimum control efficiency for add-on controls, and updates to
applicability, control equipment requirements, work practice standards,
exemptions, monitoring, recordkeeping, and test methods.
    Rules 1114 and 1104 are two of 10 rules addressed in the partial
approval and partial conditional approval of the MDAQMD's 2006 and 2015
reasonably available control technology (RACT) SIPs (83 FR 5921,
February 12, 2018). Our partial conditional approval of the RACT SIPs
was based on a commitment by the State to remedy identified
deficiencies in each of the 10 rules. The District submitted revised
Rules 1114 and 1104 to address and correct the deficiencies identified
in that RACT SIP action for wood products coatings operations and for
organic solvent degreasing operations.
    Rule 102 was updated to shift common definitions used throughout
the District rulebook to Rule 102, and to update definitions for
consistency and clarity.
    The EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) have more information
about these rules.

II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules?

    SIP rules must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not
interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section
110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in
nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions
reductions (see CAA section 193).
    Generally, SIP rules must require RACT for each category of sources
covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document, and each
major source of VOC emissions in ozone nonattainment areas classified
as Moderate or above (see CAA section 182(b)(2)). The MDAQMD regulates
an ozone nonattainment area classified as Severe for the 2008 ozone
standard (40 CFR 81.305) and both Rule 1114 and Rule 1104 regulate
sources covered by the CTG documents listed below. Therefore, these two
rules must implement RACT for those sources, or the MDAQMD must submit
a negative declaration that there are no sources in the relevant CTG
category that exceed

the CTG threshold.\3\ The District has not submitted negative
declarations for these CTG categories; therefore, we have evaluated
Rule 1114 and Rule 1104 to ensure that they implement RACT for these
CTG categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ RACT Qs & As--Reasonably Available Control Technology
(RACT): Questions and Answers, From: William T. Harnett, Director,
Air Quality Policy Division (C539-01) To: Regional Air Division
Directors, US EPA, May 18, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the EPA is evaluating Rules 1104 and 1114 to determine
whether the updated rules meet the District's commitment to cure the
deficiencies identified in partial conditional approval of the
District's RACT SIPs with respect to wood products coatings operations
and organic solvent degreasing operations.
    Guidance and policy documents that we used to evaluate
enforceability, revision/relaxation, and rule stringency requirements
for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:
    1. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the ``Bluebook,'' revised January 11,
1990).
    2. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the ``Little
Bluebook'').
    3. ``Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Wood
Furniture Manufacturing Operations'' (EPA-453/R-96-007, April 1996).
    4. ``Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Solvent Metal
Cleaning'' (EPA-450/2-77-022, November 1977).
    5. ``Control Techniques Guidelines for Industrial Cleaning
Solvents'' (EPA-453/R-06-001, September 2006).
    6. CARB's RACT/Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT)
guidance titled, ``Organic Solvent Cleaning and Degreasing Operations''
(July 18, 1991).

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    These rules are consistent with CAA requirements and relevant
guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP revisions. In
addition, Rules 1104 and 1114 cure the deficiencies identified in the
partial conditional approval of the District's RACT SIPs with respect
to wood products coatings operations and organic solvent degreasing
operations. The TSDs have more information on our evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules

    The TSDs include recommendations for the next time the local agency
modifies the rules.

D. Public Comment and Proposed Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to
fully approve the submitted rules because they fulfill all relevant
requirements. In addition, we propose to convert the partial
conditional approval of the District's RACT SIPs with respect to Rules
1104 and 1114, as found in 40 CFR 52.248(d), to a full approval. We
will accept comments from the public on this proposal until January 28,
2019. If we take final action to approve the submitted rules, our final
action will incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable SIP.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the MDAQMD rules described in Table 1 of this preamble. The
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available
through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office (please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this preamble for more information).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law
as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: December 14, 2018.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2018-28117 Filed 12-26-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Attachment 18  -  Consultation with experts on transition time to attribute improvements

Question from EPA to fish experts regarding transition time for striped bass, blue crab and oysters.

Sent: Tue 4/30/2013 9:18 AM

Dear fish panelists,

Thanks again for your earlier input on our Chesapeake Bay TMDL benefits study.  As we are preparing to implement the stated preference survey component of our study, another question has arisen that would benefit from your input.

Specifically, our survey includes a statement of the time lag between implementation of watershed management practices and the realization of improvements in the stocks of three species: blue crab, eastern oysters, and striped bass.  Insofar as possible, we want the descriptions of these time lags to be realistic.  So our question is this:

For each of these species--and keeping in mind any other restoration activities that may be occurring at the same time--how long would you expect it to take for their population sizes in the Bay to fully respond to the water quality improvements and associated habitat changes once the nutrient and sediment loads reach the TMDL goals?  Less than 5 years?  Between 5 and 15 years?  More than 15 years?

Thanks in advance for any insights you can provide!

Best regards,
**************************************************
Steve Newbold
U.S. EPA
National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE)
**************************************************

Responses from Expert Consultants

Michael Kemp, Professor, Horn Point Laboratory, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science

On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Michael Kemp<EMAIL_ADDRESS>wrote:
Steve
My response is embedded in the text below.
Best of luck,
Michael

blue crab, ~5 yrs
eastern oysters, <5 yrs
striped bass, 5-10 yrs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Walter Boynton, Professor, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science

On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Walter Boynton<EMAIL_ADDRESS>wrote:
Steve,

My estimates is that the lag would be less than 5 years for crabs and striped bass and a long time (>20 years) for oysters.  The oysters need a great deal of time to build reefs that support vibrant communities.  That's my 2 cents

Walt Boynton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth North, Associate Professor, Horn Point Laboratory, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To: "Steve Newbold"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: Expert fish panel compilation and summary for your review
Date: Fri, May 3, 2013 5:15 pm

Hi Steve,
   I think you would see a big increase in these three species within 5 years, but it would take 5 to 15 years for blue crab and oysters to fully respond because their generation times are 1-3 years. Striped bass may take longer, more than 15 years, because they take ~ 5 years to reach sexual maturity and it will take several generations to see the full effects of water quality improvements.

Kind regards,
Elizabeth North

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

Edward Houde, Professor, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science

On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 7:51 AM, Edward Houde<EMAIL_ADDRESS>wrote:

Steve:  You pose yet another difficult question that requires speculation. And, you ask the question in the context of a "full response" to TMDL goal achievement and associated habitat changes.

Blue Crab:  If there is any detectable response, I would speculate that it would be modest, registered as a small increase in aveage productivity over the long term, rather than a sudden bump-up in abundance or
production.  So, how about a small response in the 15-yr timeframe?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oyster:  Here, there potentially could be a notable response within a few years of achieving the TMDL goal and associated water-quality and habitat accompaniments.  This possibly could occur on a decadal timeframe.

Striped Bass:  There is no problem now with striped bass abundance or productivity in Chesapeake Bay.  Their abundance has been at a historical high level for more than a decade, held to levels lower than they would be by quite high directed fishing mortality. I don't think it is reasonable to expect any clear effects of TMDL goal achievement and associated habitat changes.  One could speculate about effects of climate change (increased temperature) combined with achievement of TMDL goals in which the TMDL success might mitigate the effects of climate change--i.e., propensity to reduce habitat volume suitable for striped bass production.

As you know, I worry about how speculation might affect policy decisions.  Appropriate modeling research may be the only way to explore potential responses that are certain to be complex, probably non-linear, and at least partly dependent on species interactions.

Regards--EdH

Edward D. Houde, Professor and Vice President for Education
University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science
Chesapeake Biological Laboratory

Source for transition time of lake condition attribute

Erik Jeppesen, et al. (2005). "Lake responses to reduced nutrient loading - an analysis of contemporary long-term data from 35 case studies." Freshwater Biology 50(10): 1747-1771. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2005.01415.x

SUMMARY
1. This synthesis examines 35 long-term (5 - 35 years, mean: 16 years) lake re-oligotrophication studies. It covers lakes ranging from shallow (mean depth <5 m and/or polymictic) to deep (mean depth up to 177 m), oligotrophic to hypertrophic (summer mean total phosphorus concentration from 7.5 to 3500 lg L)1 before loading reduction), subtropical to temperate (latitude: 28 - 65_), and lowland to upland (altitude: 0 - 481 m). Shallow northtemperate lakes were most abundant.
2. Reduction of external total phosphorus (TP) loading resulted in lower in-lake TP concentration, lower chlorophyll a (chl a) concentration and higher Secchi depth in most lakes. Internal loading delayed the recovery, but in most lakes a new equilibrium for TP was reached after 10 - 15 years, which was only marginally influenced by the hydraulic retention time of the lakes. With decreasing TP concentration, the concentration of soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP) also declined substantially.
3. Decreases (if any) in total nitrogen (TN) loading were lower than for TP in most lakes. As a result, the TN : TP ratio in lake water increased in 80% of the lakes. In lakes where the TN loading was reduced, the annual mean in-lake TN concentration responded rapidly.
Concentrations largely followed predictions derived from an empirical model developed earlier for Danish lakes, which includes external TN loading, hydraulic retention time and mean depth as explanatory variables.
4. Phytoplankton clearly responded to reduced nutrient loading, mainly reflecting declining TP concentrations. Declines in phytoplankton biomass were accompanied by shifts in community structure. In deep lakes, chrysophytes and dinophytes assumed greater importance at the expense of cyanobacteria. Diatoms, cryptophytes and chrysophytes became more dominant in shallow lakes, while no significant change was seen for cyanobacteria.
5. The observed declines in phytoplankton biomass and chl a may have been further augmented by enhanced zooplankton grazing, as indicated by increases in the zooplankton : phytoplankton biomass ratio and declines in the chl a : TP ratio at a summer mean TP concentration of <100 - 150 lg L)1. This effect was strongest in shallow lakes. This implies potentially higher rates of zooplankton grazing and may be ascribed to the observed large changes in fish community structure and biomass with decreasing TP contribution. In 82% of the lakes for which data on fish are available, fish biomass declined with TP. The
percentage of piscivores increased in 80%of those lakes and often a shift occurred towards dominance by fish species characteristic of less eutrophic waters.
6. Data on macrophytes were available only for a small subsample of lakes. In several of those lakes, abundance, coverage, plant volume inhabited or depth distribution of submerged macrophytes increased during oligotrophication, but in others no changes were observed despite greater water clarity.
7. Recovery of lakes after nutrient loading reduction may be confounded by concomitant environmental changes such as global warming. However, effects of global change are likely to run counter to reductions in nutrient loading rather than reinforcing re-oligotrophication.