[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 243 (Monday, December 19, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78725-78728]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32451]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0326]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes
Mellitus

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

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemption from the diabetes mellitus
requirement; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 15 individuals
for exemption from the prohibition against persons with insulin-treated
diabetes mellitus (ITDM) operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in
interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these
individuals with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 18, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0326 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 1<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket numbers for this notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below
for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the FDMS published in
the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-year period
if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved
absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the Agency to renew
exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The 15 individuals listed
in this notice have recently requested such an exemption from the
diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), which applies to drivers
of CMVs in interstate commerce.

Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each
applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the
required level of safety mandated by the statutes.

Qualifications of Applicants

Howard A. Betz

    Mr. Betz, age 63, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Betz understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV) safely.
Mr. Betz meets the requirements of the vision requirement at 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2011 and certified that
he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A Commercial
Driver's License (CDL) from Ohio.

Keith R. Boyington

    Mr. Boyington, 50, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Boyington understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Boyington meets the
requirements of the vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from
Idaho.

Adam C. Cochran

    Mr. Cochran, 22, has had ITDM since 1991. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Cochran understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Cochran meets the
requirements of the vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C operator's license from
Georgia.

Kevin J. Coppens

    Mr. Coppens, 53, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Coppens understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Coppens meets the
requirements of the vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he has stable
diabetic proliferative retinopathy in the right eye and stable diabetic
nonproliferative retinopathy in the left eye. He holds an operator's
license from Maine.

Frank H. Ford, Jr.

    Mr. Ford, 39, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His
endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Ford understands diabetes management
and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and
is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Ford meets the requirements of the
vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic
retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.

Daniel R. Harris

    Mr. Harris, 42, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Harris understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Harris meets the
requirements of the vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Texas.

Alva L. Keifer

    Mr. Keifer, 56, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Keifer understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Keifer meets the
requirements of the vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from
Ohio.

Edwin J. Lundquist

    Mr. Lundquist, 21, has had ITDM since 2003. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Lundquist understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Lundquist meets the
requirements of the vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from
Minnesota.

John B. Marriott

    Mr. Marriott, 39, has had ITDM since 2001. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Marriott understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Marriott meets the
requirements of the vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from Utah.

Joseph L. Owings

    Mr. Owings, 71, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Owings understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Owings meets the
requirements of the vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Alabama.

Richard L. Pinkard

    Mr. Pinkard, 47, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Pinkard understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Pinkard meets the
requirements of the vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from
Alabama.

Samuel E. Sanders

    Mr. Sanders, 42, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Sanders understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Sanders meets the
requirements of the vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from New York.

Jerry H. Small

    Mr. Small, 56, has had ITDM since 1984. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Small understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Small meets the
requirements of the vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from
North Carolina.

Michael L. Tyler

    Mr. Tyler, 58, has had ITDM since 1983. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Tyler understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Tyler meets the
requirements of the vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Michigan.

Richard D. Wollman

    Mr. Wollman, 56, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Wollman understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Wollman meets the
requirements of the vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from
South Dakota.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before
the close of business on the closing date indicated in the date section
of the notice.
    FMCSA notes that section 4129 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible
and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users requires
the Secretary to revise its diabetes exemption program established on
September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441).\1\ The revision must provide for
individual assessment of drivers with diabetes mellitus, and be
consistent with the criteria described in section 4018 of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 31305).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 4129(a) refers to the 2003 notice as a ``final
rule.'' However, the 2003 notice did not issue a ``final rule'' but
did establish the procedures and standards for issuing exemptions
for drivers with ITDM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 4129 requires: (1) Elimination of the requirement for 3
years of experience operating CMVs while being treated with insulin;
and (2) establishment of a specified minimum period of insulin use to
demonstrate stable control of diabetes before being allowed to operate
a CMV.
    In response to section 4129, FMCSA made immediate revisions to the
diabetes exemption program established by the September 3, 2003 notice.
FMCSA discontinued use of the 3-year

driving experience and fulfilled the requirements of section 4129 while
continuing to ensure that operation of CMVs by drivers with ITDM will
achieve the requisite level of safety required of all exemptions
granted under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e).
    Section 4129(d) also directed FMCSA to ensure that drivers of CMVs
with ITDM are not held to a higher standard than other drivers, with
the exception of limited operating, monitoring and medical requirements
that are deemed medically necessary.
    The FMCSA concluded that all of the operating, monitoring and
medical requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 notice, except as
modified, were in compliance with section 4129(d). Therefore, all of
the requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 notice, except as
modified by the notice in the Federal Register on November 8, 2005 (70
FR 67777), remain in effect.

    Issued on: December 14, 2011.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-32451 Filed 12-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 116 (Friday, June 16, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39384-39385]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12887]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1339; Airspace Docket No. 22-ANM-84]
RIN 2120-AA66

Establishment of Class E Airspace, Grand Coulee Dam Airport,
Electric City, WA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Grand Coulee Dam Airport,
Electric City, WA, in support of the airport's transition from visual
flight rules (VFR) to instrument flight rules (IFR) operations.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 31, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by FAA Docket No. FAA-2023-1339 and
Airspace Docket No. 22-ANM-84 using any of the following methods:
    * Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov and follow
the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.
    * Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140, West
Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    * Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in
Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
    * Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions for
accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of
the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. You may also contact the Rules and
Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Drasin, Federal Aviation
Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200
S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it would establish Class E airspace at Grand Coulee Dam
Airport, Electric City, WA, to support the airport's transition from
VFR to IFR operations.

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most
helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain
the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or
commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments
are filed in writing.
    The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well
as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA
personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this
proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before
the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed
after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without
incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light
of the comments it receives.

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

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at
www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Operations office (see ADDRESSES section for address, phone number, and
hours of operations). An informal docket may also be examined during
normal business hours at the office at the Northwest Mountain Regional
Office of the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic
Organization, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S
216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198.

Incorporation by Reference

    Class E5 Airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This
document proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order
JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022.
These updates would be published in the next update to FAA Order JO
7400.11. That order is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES
section of this document.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas,
air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to establish
Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at
Grand Coulee Dam Airport, Electric City, WA, in support of the
airport's transition from VFR to IFR operations.
    The proposed airspace design--which extends from the airport
reference point (ARP) 10.2 miles east and 9.7 miles southwest--would
contain departing and missed approach IFR operations until reaching
1,200 feet above the surface on the Area Navigation (RNAV) (Global
Positioning System [GPS]) Z Runway (RWY) 22 missed approach and the
SINGG (RNAV) obstacle departure procedure (ODP) as well as arriving IFR
operations below 1,500 feet above the surface on the RNAV (GPS) Y RWY
22 and RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 22 approaches.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19,
2022, and effective September 15, 2022, is amended as follows:

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

* * * * *

ANM WA E5 Electric City, WA [New]

Grand Coulee Dam Airport, WA
    (Lat. 47[deg]55'19'' N, long. 119[deg]4'59'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within an area bounded by a line beginning at the airport's 063[deg]
bearing at 10.2 miles, then clockwise along the airport's 10.2-mile
radius to the 99[deg] bearing at 10.2 miles, to the 172[deg] bearing
at 4.7 miles, to the 216[deg] bearing at 9.7 miles, then clockwise
along the airport's 9.7-mile radius to the 237[deg] bearing at 9.7
miles to the 329[deg] bearing at 3.6 miles, thence to the point of
beginning.
* * * * *

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on June 12, 2023.
B.G. Chew,
Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2023-12887 Filed 6-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 30 (Wednesday, February 13, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3674-3676]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02056]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0879; Airspace Docket No. 18-AGL-24]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Oscoda, MI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies Class E airspace at Oscoda-Wurtsmith
Airport, Oscoda, MI. This action is required due to the decommissioning
of the Au Sable VHF omnidirectional range (VOR) navigation aid, which
provided navigation guidance for the instrument procedures at the
airport, as part of the VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) Program.
Also, the geographic coordinates for the airport in the associated
airspace are updated to coincide with the FAA' s aeronautical database.
Airspace redesign is necessary for the safety and management of
instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at this airport.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, April 25, 2019. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1
Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11C at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  John Witucki, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends Class E surface airspace and Class E airspace areas
extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface at Oscoda-
Wurtsmith Airport, Oscoda, MI, to support IFR operations at the
airport.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the
Federal Register (83 FR 51901; October 15, 2018) for Docket No. FAA-
2018-0879 to modify Class E airspace at Oscoda-Wurtsmith Airport,
Oscoda, MI. Interested parties were invited to participate in this
rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the
FAA. No comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002 and
6005 of FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August 13, 2018, and effective
September 15, 2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be
published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15,
2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11C lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 modifies Class E surface airspace within a 4.5-mile radius of
Oscoda-Wurtsmith Airport, Oscoda, MI by removing the Au Sable VOR/DME
and the associated extension to the southwest of the airport, due to
the decommissioning of the Au Sable VOR, which provided navigation
guidance to the instrument procedures at the airport, as part of the
VOR MON Program.
    Also, the geographic coordinates of the airport in this airspace,
and in Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface, are adjusted to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. 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. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected
to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11C,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and
effective September 15, 2018, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as Surface Areas.

* * * * *

AGL MI E2 Oscoda, MI [Amended]

Oscoda-Wurtsmith Airport, MI
    (Lat. 44[deg]27'06'' N, long. 83[deg]23'39'' W)

    Within a 4.5-mile radius of Oscoda-Wurtsmith Airport.

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

AGL MI E5 Oscoda, MI [Amended]

Oscoda-Wurtsmith Airport, MI
    (Lat. 44[deg]27'06'' N, long. 83[deg]23'39'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7-mile radius of Oscoda-Wurtsmith Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on February 4, 2019
John Witucki,
Manager (A), Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2019-02056 Filed 2-12-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 222 (Tuesday, November 18, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68675-68676]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27258]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC15-27-000.
    Applicants: Banco Santander, S.A., Tonopah Solar I, LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization for Disposition of
Jurisdictional Facilities, Request Confidential Treatment, Waivers, and
Expedited Consideration of Banco Santander, S.A., et al.
    Filed Date: 11/7/14.
    Accession Number: 20141107-5258.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/28/14.

    Docket Numbers: EC15-28-000.
    Applicants: Spring Canyon Energy II LLC, Spring Canyon Energy III
LLC, Spring Canyon Interconnection LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act and Request for Waivers and Expedited Action of
Spring Canyon Energy II LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 11/10/14.
    Accession Number: 20141110-5133.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/1/14.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2124-009; ER10-2125-010; ER10-2127-009; ER10-
2128-009; ER10-2129-007; ER10-2130-009; ER10-2131-010; ER10-2132-009;
ER10-2133-010; ER10-2134-007; ER10-2135-007; ER10-2136-007; ER10-2137-
010; ER10-2138-010; ER10-2139-010; ER10-2140-010; ER10-2141-010; ER10-
2764-009; ER11-3872-011; ER11-4044-010; ER11-4046-009; ER12-161-009;
ER12-164-008; ER12-645-010; ER14-25-006; ER14-2187-004; ER14-2798-002;
ER14-2799-002; ER14-2820-002; ER14-2821-002.
    Applicants: Spring Canyon Energy LLC, Spring Canyon Energy II LLC,
Spring Canyon Energy II LLC, Judith Gap Energy LLC, Invenergy TN LLC,
Grays Harbor Energy LLC, Wolverine Creek Energy LLC, Forward Energy
LLC, Grand Ridge Energy LLC, Grand Ridge Energy II LLC, Grand Ridge
Energy III LLC, Grand Ridge Energy IV LLC, Grand Ridge Energy V LLC,
Willow Creek Energy LLC, Sheldon Energy LLC, Hardee Power Partners
Limited, Spindle Hill Energy LLC, Invenergy Cannon Falls LLC, Beech
Ridge Energy LLC, Vantage Wind Energy LLC, Stony Creek Energy LLC,
Gratiot County Wind LLC, Gratiot County Wind II LLC, California Ridge
Wind Energy LLC, Bishop Hill Energy LLC, Bishop Hill Energy III LLC,
Prairie Breeze Wind Energy LLC, Grand Ridge Energy Storage LLC, Beech
Ridge Energy II LLC, Beech Ridge Energy Storage LLC.
    Description: Notification of Change in Facts of Spring Canyon
Energy LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 11/7/14.
    Accession Number: 20141107-5255.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/28/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1578-004.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: OATT EIM Compliance Filing
Effective Date to be effective 11/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/10/14.
    Accession Number: 20141110-5151.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/1/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2626-001.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: SCE Second Compliance Filing
to Order No. 792 to be effective 10/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/10/14.
    Accession Number: 20141110-5158.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/1/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2872-001.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): SCE's Response to
Deficiency re Service Agmt City of Industry--Grand Crossing to be
effective 9/16/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/10/14.
    Accession Number: 20141110-5155.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/1/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-366-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Tariff Withdrawal per 35.15: Notice of Termination of
KMPUD IA and TFA Service Agreement 230 to be effective 10/31/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/10/14.
    Accession Number: 20141110-5001.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/1/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-367-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): KMPUD
IA and TFA Replacement Filing--TO Service Agreement No. 276 to be
effective 11/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/10/14.
    Accession Number: 20141110-5002.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/1/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-368-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2014-
11-10_SA 6502 Illinois Power-MISO SSR Unanticipated Repairs Amendment
to be effective 11/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/10/14.
    Accession Number: 20141110-5144.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/1/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-369-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool
Participants Committee.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Admin.
Rev. to FCM Rules--Part 1 of 2 to be effective 1/30/2015.
    Filed Date: 11/10/14.
    Accession Number: 20141110-5145.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/1/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-369-001.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool
Participants Committee.
    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): Admin. Rev. to FCM
Rules--Part 2 of 2 to be effective 6/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 11/10/14.
    Accession Number: 20141110-5150.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/1/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-370-000.

    Applicants: Ameren Illinois Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Letter
Agreement Between Prairie Power, Inc. and Eastern Illini Electric Coop.
to be effective 10/9/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/10/14.
    Accession Number: 20141110-5148.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/1/14.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 10, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-27258 Filed 11-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 211 (Thursday, November 2, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75281-75282]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24244]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-11523-01-OW]

National Drinking Water Advisory Council; Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of a public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of
Ground Water and Drinking Water is announcing a meeting of the National
Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC or Council) as authorized under
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The primary purposes of the meeting
are: for EPA to consult with the NDWAC as required by the SDWA on a
final National Primary Drinking Water Regulation: Lead and Copper Rule
Improvements; and for the NDWAC to review the report of the Microbial
and Disinfection Byproducts (MDBP) Rule Revisions Working Group to the
Council and to develop advice and recommendations from the Council to
the EPA Administrator on issues included in EPA's November 2021 charge
to the Council on potential revisions to MDBP rules. Additional details
will be provided in the meeting agenda, which will be posted on EPA's
NDWAC website prior to the meeting. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this announcement for more information.

DATES: The meeting will be held on November 28, 2023, from 10:30 a.m.
to 5:30 p.m., eastern time; on November 29, 2023, from 10:30 a.m. to
5:30 p.m., eastern time; and on November 30, 2023, from 10:30 a.m. to
5:30 p.m., eastern time.

ADDRESSES: This will be a virtual meeting. There will be no in-person
gathering for this meeting. For more information about attending,
providing oral statements, and accessibility for the meeting, as well
as sending written comments, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
of this announcement.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Corr, NDWAC Designated
Federal Officer, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (Mail Code
4601), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Attending the Meeting: The meeting will be open to the general
public. The meeting agenda and information on how to register for and
attend the meeting online will be provided on EPA's website at: https://www.epa.gov/ndwac prior to the meeting.
    Oral Statements: EPA will allocate one hour for the public to
present oral comments during the meeting. Oral statements will be
limited to three minutes per person during the public comment period.
It is preferred that only one person present a statement on behalf of a
group or organization. Persons interested in presenting an oral
statement should send an email to [email protected] by noon, eastern time,
on November 21, 2023.
    Written Statements: Any person who wishes to file a written
statement can do so before or after the Council meeting. Send written
statements by email to [email protected] or see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section if sending statements by mail. Written statements
received by noon, eastern time, on November 21, 2023, will be
distributed to all members of the Council prior to the meeting.
Statements received after that time will become part of the permanent
file for the meeting and will be forwarded to the Council members after
conclusion of the meeting. Members of the public should be aware that
their personal contact information, if included in any written
comments, may be posted to the NDWAC website. Copyrighted material will
not be posted without the explicit permission of the copyright holder.
    Accessibility: For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, or to request accommodations for a
disability, please contact Elizabeth Corr by email at
[email protected], or by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, preferably at
least 10 days prior to the meeting to allow as much time as possible to
process your request.
    National Drinking Water Advisory Council: The NDWAC was created by
Congress on December 16, 1974, as part of the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) of 1974, Public Law 93-523, 42 U.S.C. 300j-5, and is operated in
accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA), 5 U.S.C. app. 2. The NDWAC was established to advise, consult
with, and

make recommendations to the EPA Administrator on matters relating to
activities, functions, policies, and regulations under the SDWA.
General information concerning the NDWAC is available at: https://www.epa.gov/ndwac.

Jennifer L. McLain,
Director, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.
[FR Doc. 2023-24244 Filed 11-1-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 137)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 40719-40720]
[DOCID:fr16jy08-3]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0336; Airspace Docket No. 08-ANM-4]

 Establishment of Class E Airspace; Fort Collins, CO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action will establish Class E airspace at Fort Collins-
Loveland Municipal Airport, Fort Collins, CO. Controlled airspace is
necessary to accommodate Instrument flight rules (IFR) operations from
this airport located in mountainous terrain and enable positive control
at Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport, Fort Collins, CO. This will
enhance the safety and management of aircraft operations at Fort
Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport, Fort Collins, CO.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, September 25, 2008. The Director of
the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action
under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9
and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Area, 1601
Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On May 8, 2008, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice
of proposed rulemaking to establish controlled airspace at Fort
Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport, Fort Collins, CO (73 FR 26048).
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No
comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.9R signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15,
2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class
E airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in that Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by establishing Class E airspace at Fort Collins, CO.
Controlled airspace is necessary to enhance the safety of IFR aircraft
operations at Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport, Fort Collins,
CO.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (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. Since 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 U.S.
Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 discusses the authority of the FAA
Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is
promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A,
Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with
prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to
ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This
regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes
additional controlled airspace at Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal
Airport, Fort Collins, CO.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15,
2007 is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas.

* * * * *

ANM CO E2 Fort Collins, CO [New]

Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport, CO
    (Lat. 40[deg]27'07'' N., long. 105[deg]00'41'' W.)

    Within a 5-mile radius of Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal
Airport.
* * * * *

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on July 1, 2008.
Kevin Nolan,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. E8-16192 Filed 7-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 39 (Wednesday, February 27, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13264-13268]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04532]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0302; FRL-9377-6]

Acetochlor; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation amends inadvertent tolerances for residues of
acetochlor in or on crop groups 15 and 16 for cereal grains by dropping
the exclusion for rice grain and straw. Monsanto Company requested
these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective February 27, 2013. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before April 29, 2013 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: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0302, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. 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 (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-
5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hope Johnson, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email 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.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

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-2012-0302 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
April 29, 2013. 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 (excluding any Confidential Business Information (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 the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0302, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of July 25, 2012 (77 FR 43562) (FRL-9353-
6), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
2F7996) by Monsanto Company, 1300 I St. NW., Suite 450 East,
Washington, DC 20005. The petition requested revisions to the current
tolerances for residues of the herbicide acetochlor, 2-chloro-2'-
methyl-6'-ethyl-N-ethoxymethylacetanilide and its metabolites
containing either the 2-ethyl-6-methylaniline (EMA) or the 2-(1-
hydroxyethyl)-6-methyl-aniline (HEMA) moiety, at 40 CFR 180.470 for
grain, cereal, group 15, except corn, grain sorghum, rice, and wheat,
grain and grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw, group 16, except
corn, grain sorghum, rice and wheat, straw.
    Specifically the petition requested that crop groups 15 and 16 be
amended

by dropping the exception for rice grain and rice straw, respectively.
That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Monsanto
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.

III. Tolerance Level

    Monsanto sought the removal of the exception for rice and rice
straw for the acetochlor tolerances for crop groups 15 and 16 so that
rice crops could be rotated to fields previously treated with
acetochlor. EPA determined that this revision to these tolerances was
appropriate without modifying the tolerance value based upon
translation of residue data reflecting analysis for residues of
acetochlor and its metabolites in/on wheat and sorghum commodities
planted after treatment with acetochlor. Residues in the wheat and
sorghum grain were non-quantifiable, whereas finite residues that were
below the existing crop group tolerance were reported in the straw.

IV. 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 FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), 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 acetochlor including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with acetochlor 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.
    Acetochlor has low acute toxicity by the oral, dermal, and
inhalation routes of exposure and is mildly irritating to the eyes. The
results of two dermal irritation studies indicate that it is a mild to
strong skin irritant. Acetochlor is also a strong dermal sensitizer.
    Evidence of neurotoxicity was observed in acute and subchronic
neurotoxicity screening studies in rats, developmental toxicity studies
in rats, and subchronic and chronic studies in dogs. In addition to the
nervous system, the major target organs affected in subchronic and
chronic studies in rats, dogs, and mice exposed to acetochlor are the
liver, thyroid (secondary to liver), kidney, testes, and erythrocytes.
Species-specific target organs include the nasal olfactory epithelium
in rats and the lungs in mice.
    There is no evidence of increased qualitative or quantitative
susceptibility of fetuses or offspring to acetochlor exposure in the
developmental and reproduction toxicity studies in rats and rabbits. In
two developmental toxicity studies in rats, fetal effects (increased
early resorptions, post-implantation loss, and decreased fetal weight)
occurred at doses that also resulted in maternal toxicity (mortality,
clinical signs of toxicity, and decreased maternal body weight gain).
In two rabbit developmental toxicity studies there were no adverse
fetal effects at the highest doses tested (HDT) (190 milligrams/
kilograms/day (mg/kg/day) and 300 mg/kg/day); whereas maternal toxicity
(body weight loss) was seen at 50 mg/kg/day in one study. In three
reproduction toxicity studies in rats, offspring effects (decreased pup
weights in the first two studies; decreased pup weights, decreased F2
litter size at birth, and focal hyperplasia and polypoid adenomata in
nasal epithelium of adult F1 offspring at study termination in the
third study) occurred at the same or higher doses than those resulting
in parental toxicity (decreased body weight or weight gain in the first
two studies; focal hyperplasia and polypoid adenomata in nasal
epithelium of adult F1 offspring at study termination in the third
study). There was no evidence of reproductive toxicity observed at any
dose tested in two of the three reproductive toxicity studies in rats.
The third reproduction study in rats showed a decreased number of
implantations at the HDT of 1,750 parts per million (ppm).
    EPA has determined that quantification of carcinogenic risk on a
linear, non-threshold basis is not appropriate for the mouse tumors.
There are acceptable mode of action data for the rat tumors (nasal
olfactory epithelial tumors and thyroid follicular cell tumors) which
are adequate to support a non-linear, threshold approach for assessment
of cancer risk. The rat nasal tumors are the most sensitive effect for
cancer risk. However, because rat nasal tumors are not the most
sensitive chronic effect, EPA has not conducted a separate cancer-only
risk assessment but performed a single, chronic risk assessment that
will be protective of both non-cancer and cancer effects, including rat
nasal tumors, thyroid tumors, and mouse tumors.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by acetochlor 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 the document entitled ``Acetochlor Human Health
Risk Assessment for Proposed New Use of Acetochlor on Cotton and
Soybeans'' at page 41 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0002.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/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 acetochlor used for
human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.A of the final rule
published in the Federal Register issue of September 16, 2009 (74 FR
47445) (FRL-8434-1).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to acetochlor, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing acetochlor tolerances in 40 CFR
180.470. EPA assessed dietary exposures from acetochlor 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.
    Such effects were identified for acetochlor. In estimating acute
dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey, entitled ``What We Eat in America'' (NHANES/WWEIA).
This dietary survey was conducted from 2003 to 2008. As to residue
levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance level residues and 100 percent
crop treated (PCT) for all commodities. Experimentally derived
processing factors were used for cereal grain commodities. Default
processing factors were used for all other commodities.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 2003-2008
NHANES/WWEIA. As to residue levels in food, EPA used anticipated
residues from field trial data and 100 PCT assumptions for all
commodities. Experimentally derived processing factors were used for
cereal grain commodities. Default processing factors were used for all
other commodities.
    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 a non-linear RfD approach is appropriate
for assessing cancer risk to acetochlor. However, cancer-only risk
assessment was not conducted because the chronic RfD of 0.02 mg/kg/day
will be protective of both non-cancer and cancer effects. The chronic
exposure assessment described in Unit IV.C.1.ii. also accurately
estimates exposure for the purposes of assessing cancer risk.
    iv. Anticipated residue information. EPA used anticipated residues
derived from the results of field trials in the chronic dietary
exposure assessment.
    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 FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under
FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later
than 5 years from the date of issuance of these tolerances.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for acetochlor in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of acetochlor. 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.
    Acetochlor parent residue exposure is generally higher and more
widespread through surface water sources than ground water, therefore,
the Agency generated the surface water concentrations using the PRZM
(Pesticide Root Zone Model) and EXAMS (Exposure Analysis Modeling
System). The estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of
acetochlor for acute exposures are estimated to be 75 parts per billion
(ppb) for drinking water. For chronic exposures for non-cancer
assessments are estimated to be 4.8 ppb for drinking water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 75 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 4.8 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    Acetochlor 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.''
    The chloroacetanilides have been evaluated by the Agency and the
Federal Insecticides, Fungicides, and Rodenticides Act (FIFRA)
Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) as a related group of chemicals for
this purpose. Acetochlor is included in a Cumulative Assessment Group
(CAG) of chloroacetanilide pesticides. Structurally related
chloroacetanilides include acetochlor, alachlor, butachlor,
metolachlor, and propachlor. For purposes of a cumulative risk
assessment, it was determined that the common mechanism of toxicity
group consists of alachlor, acetochlor, and butachlor. Butachlor is
excluded from the group for risk assessment purposes at present because
there are no registered uses or tolerances for this chemical in the
United States. The group was selected based on common endpoints of:
     Nasal turbinate tumors in rats, and a known mechanism of
toxicity for development of these tumors.
     Induction of hepatic Uridine Diphosphate-Glucuronosyl
Transferase (UDPGT), which results in increased incidence of thyroid
follicular cell tumors secondary to disruption of pituitary-thyroid
homeostasis.

    Thyroid effects were not included in the final cumulative
assessment of the chloroacetanilide herbicides because they were
determined to occur at excessively toxic dose levels, and therefore
were not considered relevant to human risk assessment. Nasal tumors
represent the most sensitive endpoint for both compounds.
    An updated cumulative risk assessment of the chloroacetanilide
(CAG) pesticides acetochlor and alachlor conducted in April 2007
provides an assessment of existing and new uses of those chemicals to
date. Based on the most recent chloroacetanilide CAG cumulative risk
assessment, cumulative risk is not of concern. A revised quantitative
cumulative assessment was not conducted because the proposed amended
use would not affect the cumulative risk results. Not only is
acetochlor a very minor contributor to chloroacetanilide cumulative
risk when compared to alachlor, but removing the exception for rotation
to rice will only have a minor impact on acetochlor exposure since
finite residues on grains, including rice, are unlikely. In the residue
data cited/translated to support this petition, non-quantifiable
residues were reported in wheat and sorghum grains.

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 Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) Safety Factor (SF). In applying this provision,
EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different
additional SF when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of
a different factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The prenatal and postnatal
toxicity database for acetochlor includes two rat and two rabbit
developmental toxicity studies and three reproduction toxicity studies
in rats. As discussed in Unit IV.A., there was no evidence of
qualitative or quantitative susceptibility of fetuses or offspring to
acetochlor exposure in any of these studies.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that the FQPA SF of 10X may be
reduced to 1X for the acetochlor acute and chronic dietary risk
assessment. That decision is based on the following findings:
    i. The toxicity database for acetochlor is now complete. An
immunotoxicity study has been reviewed and is acceptable/guideline.
Immunotoxicity was not observed at the highest dose tested. The acute
neurotoxicity (ACN) and subchronic neurotoxicity (SCN) studies have
also been upgraded to acceptable/guideline based on acceptable positive
control data and functional observational battery measures.
    ii. Furthermore, EPA has determined that a developmental
neurotoxicity study is not required since:
    a. There is no evidence of increased susceptibility in the rat and
rabbit in the prenatal and 2-generation reproduction postnatal studies.
    b. Developmental effects were observed in the presence of maternal
effects.
    c. The effects observed in the neurotoxicity studies were only at
high doses.
    iii. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues or average residue levels
derived from reliable field trials. EPA made conservative (protective)
assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess
exposure to acetochlor in drinking water. These assessments will not
underestimate the exposure and risks posed by acetochlor.

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.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to acetochlor will occupy <1% of the aPAD for infants <1 year old, 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
acetochlor from food and water will utilize 6.2% of the cPAD for
infants <1 year old the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. There are no residential uses for acetochlor.
    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 no short-term adverse effect was identified, acetochlor 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 no intermediate-term adverse effect was identified,
acetochlor is not expected to pose an intermediate-term risk.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. The chronic RfD of
0.02 mg/kg/day will be protective of both non-cancer and cancer
effects, including rat nasal tumors, thyroid tumors, and mouse tumors.
Chronic dietary risks do not exceed the Agency's level of concern.
    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 acetochlor residues.

V. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (high performance liquid
chromatography (HPLC) method with oxidative coulometric electrochemical
detection (OCED)) is available to enforce the tolerance expression.
    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email 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 United Nations 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 a MRL for acetochlor.

VI. Conclusion

    Therefore, the acetochlor tolerances for crop groups 15 and 16 are
amended to drop the exception for rice and rice straw, respectively.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d)
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 FFDCA section 408(d), 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 FFDCA section 408(n)(4). 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) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    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) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VIII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
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
the rule in the Federal Register. This action 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: February 15, 2013.
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. In Sec.  180.470, revise the entries ``grain, cereal, forage, fodder
and straw, group 16, except corn, grain sorghum, rice and wheat,
straw'' and ``grain, cereal, group 15, except corn, grain sorghum,
rice, and wheat, grain'' in the table in paragraph (d) to read as
follows:

Sec.  180.470  Acetochlor; tolerances for residues.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

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

                                * * * * *
Grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw, group 16, except           0.3
 corn, grain sorghum, and wheat, straw....................
Grain, cereal, group 15, except corn, grain sorghum, and            0.05
 wheat, grain.............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[FR Doc. 2013-04532 Filed 2-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P