Materials Characterization Paper

In Support of the

Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking –

Identification of Nonhazardous Materials That Are Solid Waste

Biomass - Agricultural Residues and Food Scraps

December 16, 2008

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

1.	Definitions of Agricultural Residues and Food Scraps

Agricultural residues include crop residues remaining in fields after
harvest (primary residues) and processing residues generated from the
harvested portions of crops during food, feed, and fiber production
(secondary residues).

Food scraps are generated at all stages of the food system including
farming, storage, processing, wholesaling, retail, and consumption
(Scott Kantor et al. 1997). Food scraps, broadly defined, include both
the portion of harvested crops and livestock that does not enter the
retail market and the portion of food discarded by retailers and
consumers. In this paper, food scraps generated by retailers and
consumers are not considered because they enter the waste stream as
municipal solid waste (MSW) (EPA 2006, Simmons et al. 2006). Food scraps
generated in the manufacture and distribution of food are produced
through spoilage, removal of unusable portions, discard of substandard
products, and packaging failure.

2.	Annual Quantities of Agricultural Residues and Food Scraps Generated
and Used

Sectors that Generate Agricultural Residues and Food Scraps:

NAICS 111: Crop Production

NAICS 11511: Support Activities for Crop Production

NAICS 311: Food Manufacturing

NAICS 312 Beverage and Tobacco Product Manufacturing

Quantities and Prices of Agricultural Residues and Food Scraps
Generated:

Current annual production of agricultural residues from major crops is
around 500 million dry tons (Milbrandt 2005, Haq and Easterly 2006).
These crops include barley, canola, corn, cotton, dry beans, flax, oats,
peanuts, peas, potatoes, rice, rye, safflower, sorghum, soybeans,
sugarcane, sunflowers, and wheat, among others. The fraction of this
amount that can be removed from fields in a sustainable manner (i.e.,
while maintaining cropland fertility and quality) varies widely from 113
million tons by Perlack et al. (2005) to 173 million tons by Milbrandt
(2005)). Newer analyses soon to be published tend to be even lower.

Sugarcane production from 2005 through 2007 averaged 13.5 million tons
of cane (ERS 2008). This yielded approximately 3.8 million tons of
bagasse assuming 0.28 lbs. of bagasse produced per pound of cane (Macedo
et al. 2004).Domestic production of peanut hulls was approximately 0.27
million tons in 1999 (Özyurt and Realff 2002).

Total quantities of secondary agricultural residues and industrial food
scraps produced on an annual basis are not readily accessible from the
available literature.

Further analysis could be used to derive an estimate of industrial food
scrap production by applying known conversion factors for weight
reductions that occur as crops and livestock are processed into retailed
food products. These conversion factors range from 5 percent for fresh
fruit to 30 percent for meat, poultry, and processed vegetables (Scott
Kantor et al. 1997, Jones Putman and Allshouse 1999).

Around 75 million tons, or two-thirds, of the 113 million tons of
sustainably harvestable primary agricultural residue estimated by
Perlack et al. (2005) is corn stover, which is composed of corn stalks,
husks, and shelled cobs. Processing facilities experience marginal
feedstock costs from $54 to $84 per dry ton depending on the fraction of
stover collected from the field and transportation distance (Petrolia
2008).

Haq and Easterly (2006) provide a detailed list of supply curves for
primary and secondary agricultural residues. These could be updated for
current collection and transportation costs given recent increases in
energy prices.

Trends in Generation of Agricultural Residues and Food Scraps:

Total primary agricultural residue production fluctuates with 1) the
amount of US land in crop production and 2) the relative proportion of
crops, each with its own residue production rate. Current trends suggest
that higher food prices will drive additional land into crop production
(Secchi and Babcock 2007), thereby potentially increasing residue
production.

Domestic sugarcane production has decreased over the past decade (ERS
2008), thus reducing the total amount of secondary agricultural residue
(bagasse) combusted in sugar mills. Conversely, new methods for
utilizing sugarcane “trash,” or field residue, may increase total
biomass use from this crop (Macedo et al. 2008).

Trends in other secondary agricultural residue and food scraps are not
readily available.

3.	Uses of Agricultural Residues and Food Scraps

Combustion Uses of Agricultural Residues and Food Scraps:

In 2007, approximately 6.0 million tons of agricultural residues were
burned as fuel, 92 percent of which (Btu basis) provided useful thermal
output (EIA 2008). The remaining 8 percent was used to produce
electricity. Around 71 percent of total agricultural residues combusted
(Btu basis) were secondary residues used in the food processing
industry, mostly sugarcane bagasse at sugar mills (EIA 2007). The
remaining 29 percent was used in the Agriculture, Forestry, and Mining,
and the Paper and Allied Products industries (EIA 2008).

An emerging market for corn stover and other primary and secondary
agricultural residues is for use as a heat and power source for the
production of corn and cellulosic ethanol (Morey et al. 2006, Farrell
and Gopal 2008).

Non-Combustion Uses of Agricultural Residues and Food Scraps:

Primary agricultural residues play an important role in maintaining
cropland production.  Removing them can increase erosion, reduce crop
productivity, and deplete soil carbon and nutrients (Graham et al.
2007). Recent work has shown that cropland is particularly susceptible
to loss of soil carbon with increased residue removal (Wilhelm et al.
2007).

Primary agricultural residues are often harvested to provide animal
bedding.

Certain secondary agricultural residues can be spread upon cropland as
soil treatments. Such is the case with peanut hulls, where a majority in
Georgia (40 percent of US production) are used in granular carriers for
lawn and garden insecticide and fertilizer products, with the remainder
sold for livestock feed and bedding (Özyurt and Realff 2002).

Non-combustion uses for food scraps can include composting.

Quantities of Agricultural Residues and Food Scraps Landfilled:

Primary agricultural residues are not landfilled to an appreciable
extent.

Data on the quantity of food scraps landfilled are not readily
accessible in the available literature. Further inquiry may reveal these
amounts. For example, Annex 3 to the “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2006” report describes a methodology (Pages
A-179 and A-180) that was followed to estimate methane generation at
industrial landfills (EPA 2008). This included gathering information on
food processing wastes diverted to landfills.

Quantities of Agricultural Residues and Food Scraps Stockpiled/Stored:

Primary agricultural residues tend to degrade rapidly after harvest and
are largely decomposed by the following planting season.

Quantities of secondary agricultural residues and food scraps stockpiled
or stored are unknown.

Exhibit 1:  Overview of Generation and Use of Agricultural Residues and
Food Scraps

Commodity	Annual Quantity Generated 	Annual Quantity Used as Fuel	Annual
Quantity Landfilled	Annual Quantity in Other Uses	Total Quantity
Stockpiled

Cement Kilns	Other

---------- Million Tons -----------

Primary Ag. Residues	500a	N/I	6.0 Combined	0	327–387b	0

Secondary Ag. Residues	N/I	N/I

N/I	N/I	N/I

Food Scraps	N/I	N/I	N/I	N/I	N/I	N/I

Notes: aTotal primary agricultural residue from major crops. bMinimum
amount needed to remain on land to maintain soil fertility and moisture,
and prevent erosion and carbon loss.

N/I = not identified

4.	Management and Combustion Processes for Agricultural Residues and
Food Scraps

Types of Units Using Agricultural Residues and Food Scraps:

The discussion for this section centers on the use of bagasse in sugar
mills. Bagasse is burned in fuel cells, horseshoe boilers, and spreader
stoker boilers (EPA 1996). Other emerging technologies of combusting
agricultural residues and food scraps are described in Farrell and Gopal
(2008).

Sourcing of Agricultural Residues and Food Scraps:

Agricultural residues and food scraps are generated from harvesting
crops and processing crops and livestock into food products for retail
sale.

Bagasse is produced when chopped and crushed cane is milled through a
series of grooved rolls, thereby releasing cane juices.

Processing of Agricultural Residues and Food Scraps:

Bagasse does not require special processing before being combusted.

State Status of Agricultural Residues and Food Scraps:

As of September 2006, approximately 50 percent of states had renewable
fuels portfolio standards requiring that varying percentages of power
generated within the individual states come from alternative fuels
(including biomass) by a designated future date; several more states
have enacted such regulations since then (DOE 2006).

5.	 Agricultural Residues and Food Scraps Composition and Impacts

Composition of Agricultural Residues and Food Scraps:

Most agricultural residues have a high heating value of between 12.9 and
14.6 million btu/ton (6,450 to 7,300 btu/lb) (Wright et al. 2006).
Air-dried biomass is typically around 15 to 20 percent moisture.

Bagasse has an approximate high heating value of 12.1 million btu/ton
(6,065 btu/lb), (Wright et al. 2006). As burned in sugar mills (45 to 55
percent moisture by weight), its heating value is between 6.0 and 8.0
million btu/ton (3,000 and 4,000 btu/lb) (EPA 1996).

The high heat value of peanut hulls is 16.0 million btu/ton (8,031
btu/lb) (Bain et al. 2003).

The heating value of food scraps is likely to be close to the biogenic
portion of MSW, which has an average heat content (moisture content
unknown) of 9,696 btu/ton (4,848 btu/lb).

Impacts of Agricultural Residues and Food Scraps:

Use of biomass as a substitute for coal in an existing power plant
reduces SO2, NOx, and other emissions (Hong 2007 p.13).

Combustion of corn stover can yield NOx emissions of 0.22 pounds per
MMBtu and SOx emissions of 0.10 pounds per MMBtu (De Kam 2007 p.12).

Data on emissions from combustion of food scraps are not readily
available.

EPA’s AP-42 includes estimated emission factors for bagasse combustion
in boilers at sugar mills using a variety of control technologies.  For
example, for particulate matter (PM) of unspecified size, bagasse
combustion emits between 0.2 and 2.2 pounds per MMBtu, depending on the
type of control technology utilized.  Estimated emissions of PM-10 are
0.19 lbs./MMBtu when using wet scrubber controls.  Uncontrolled NOx
emissions are 0.17 lbs./MMBtu.  Note that EPA rates the data quality of
emission factors for controlled PM as high (i.e., based on repeated
tests at multiple sites), while the remaining factors are less reliable
estimates (EPA 1996, p. 1.8-4).

Lifecycle Emissions Impacts:

Use of agricultural residues or food scraps as a replacement for
traditional primary fuels eliminates the environmental impacts
associated with extraction and processing of traditional fuels.  In
addition to the emissions impacts of combustion described above, Exhibit
2 lists the quantities of the total cradle-to-gate emissions for these
fuels based on typical processes in the United States in the late 1990s.

Exhibit 2:  Emissions from Extraction and Processing of Traditional
Fuels (Lb./MMBtu)

Pollutant	Coal	Distillate Fuel Oil	Residual Fuel Oil	Wood	Natural Gas

Criteria Pollutants

PM2.5	-	-	-	-	-

PM10	-	-	-	-	-

PM, unspecified	0.246	0.012	0.012	6.67x10-4	0.004

NOx	0.022	0.061	0.062	0.08	0.117

VOCs	0.008	0.361	0.365	-	0.515

SOx	0.022	0.186	0.187	0.003	1.913

CO	0.017	0.046	0.046	0.022	0.223

Pb	2.60x10-7	1.01x10-6	1.00x10-6	-	2.72x10-7

Hg	8.17x10-8	1.87x10-7	1.87x10-7	-	7.18x10-8

Source:

Franklin Associates 1998.

Note:

“-” signifies data not available; may equal zero.

The emission information presented in this table is derived from Life
Cycle Inventory (LCI) data, as compiled by Franklin Associates.   LCI
data identifies and quantifies resource inputs, energy requirements, and
releases to the air, water, and land for each step in the manufacture of
a product or process, from the extraction of the raw materials to
ultimate disposal. The LCI can be used to identify those system
components or life cycle steps that are the main contributors to
environmental burdens such as energy use, solid waste, and atmospheric
and waterborne emissions.  Uncertainty in an LCI is due to the
cumulative effects of input uncertainties and data variability.

There are several life cycle inventory databases available in the U.S.
and Europe.  For this paper, we applied the most readily available LCI
database that was most consistent with the materials and uses examined.
These LCI data rely on system boundaries as defined by Franklin
Associates, as described in the documentation for this database,
available at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.pre.nl/download/manuals/DatabaseManualFranklinUS98.pdf"
http://www.pre.nl/download/manuals/DatabaseManualFranklinUS98.pdf .

References

Bain RL, Amos WA, Downing M, Perlack RL. 2003, Biopower Technical
Assessment: State of the Industry and Technology (NREL/TP-510-33123,
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO).

De Kam, Matthew J., R. Vance Morey, and Douglas G. Tiffany. 2007,
“Integrating Biomass to Produce Heat and Power at Ethanol Plants,”
presented at the 2007 ABASE Annual International Meeting.

Economic Research Service (ERS). 2008, Sugar and Sweeteners Yearbook,
Table 15 (Economic Research Service, US Dept. of Agriculture,
Washington, DC).

Farrell AE, Gopal AR. 2008, Bioenergy research needs for heat,
electricity, and liquid fuels. MRS Bulletin 33: 373-387.

Franklin Associates.  1998, “Franklin US LCI 98 Library.”

Graham RL, Nelson R, Sheehan J, Perlack RD, Wright LL. 2007, Current and
potential US corn stover supplies. Agron J 99: 1-11.

Haq Z, Easterly JL. 2006, Agricultural residue availability in the
United States. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 129-132: 3-21.

Hong, Sung Wook. 2007, “The Usability of Switchgrass, Rice Straw, and
Logging Residue as Feedstocks for Power Generation in East Texas.”

Jones Putnam J, Allshouse JE. 1999, Food Consumption, Prices, and
Expenditures, 1970-97 (Stat. Bull. No. 965, Food and Rural Economics
Division, Economic Research Service, US Dept. of Agriculture,
Washington, DC).

Macedo IC, Leal MRLV, de Silva JEAR. 2004, Assessment of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions in the Production and Use of Fuel Ethanol in Brazil (Govt. of
the State of São Paulo, Brazil).

Macedo, IC, Seabra JEA, Silva JEAR. 2008, Green house gases emissions in
the production and use of ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil: The
2005/2006 averages and a prediction for 2020. Biomass and Bioenergy 32:
582-595.

Milbrandt A. 2005, A Geographic Perspective on the Current Biomass
Resource Availability in the United States (NREL/TP-560-39181, National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO).

Morey RV, Tiffany DG, Hatfield DL. 2006, Biomass for electricity and
process heat at ethanol plants. Appl Eng Agriculture 22: 723-728.

Özyurt DB, Realff MJ. 2002, Combining a geographical information system
and process engineering to design an agricultural-industrial ecosystem.
J Ind Ecol 5: 13-31.

Perlack RL, et al. 2005, Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and
Bioproducts Industry: The Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual
Supply (ORNL/TM-2005/66, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN).

Petrolia DR. 2008, The economics of harvesting and transporting corn
stover for conversion to fuel ethanol: A case study for Minnesota.
Biomass and Bioenergy 32: 603-612.

Secchi S, Babcock BA. 2007, Impact of High Crop Prices on Environmental
Quality: A Case of Iowa and the Conservation Reserve Program (Working
Paper 07-WP 447, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa
State University, Ames, IA).

Scott Kantor L, Lipton K, Manchester A, Oliveira V. 1997, Estimating and
addressing America’s food losses. FoodReview Jan-Apr: 2-12.

Simmons P, Goldstein N, Kaufman SM, Themelis NJ, Thompson, J, Jr. 2006,
The state of garbage in America. BioCycle Apr: 26-43.

United States Department of Energy (DOE).  2006, Biomass Energy Data
Book:  Edition 1, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, USDOA,
ORNL/TM-2006-571, Table 3.16 (US Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN)

United States Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2007, 2002 Energy
Consumption by Manufacturers, Table 3.6 – Selected Wood and
Wood-Related Products in Fuel Consumption (Energy Information
Administration, US Dept. of Energy, Washington, DC).

United States Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2008, Renewable
Energy Annual, 2006 (Energy Information Administration, US Dept. of
Energy, Washington, DC).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1996, 1.8 –
Bagasse Combustion in Sugar Mills in AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I (US
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006, Municipal
Solid Waste in the United Sates: 2005 Facts and Figures
(EPAA530-R-06-011, Office of Solid Waste, US Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008, Inventory of
US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2006 (USEPA #430-R-08-005, US
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC).

Wilhelm WW, Johnson JMF, Karlen DL, Lightle DT. 2007, Corn stover to
sustain soil organic carbon further constrains biomass supply. Agron J
99: 1665-1667.

Wright L, Boundy B, Perlack B, Davis S, Saulsbury B. 2006, Biomass
Energy Data Book: Edition 1 (ORNL/TM-2006/571, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN).

 The summary table in the reference does not always specify which types
of biomass are included, however, it is likely that agricultural
residues are included.  For example, Nevada includes “agricultural
wastes.”

 PAGE

 PAGE   7

Biomass - Agricultural Residues and Food Scraps


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 143 (Tuesday, July 26, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44496-44501]
[FR Doc No: 2011-18664]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 107

[Docket Nos. PHMSA-2009-0410 (HM-233B)]
RIN 2137-AE73

Hazardous Materials Transportation: Revisions of Special Permits
Procedures; Response to Appeals; Corrections

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

ACTION: Correcting Amendments.

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

SUMMARY: On January 5, 2011, PHMSA published a final rule under Docket
Number PHMSA-2009-0410 (HM-233B) that amended the Hazardous Materials
Regulations to revise the application procedures for special permits.
Specifically, the revisions required an applicant to provide additional
information about its operation to enable the agency to better evaluate
the applicant's ability to demonstrate an equivalent level of safety
and the safety impact of operations that would be authorized in the
special permit. In response to appeals submitted by entities affected
by the January 5 final rule, this final rule amends requirements and
provides additional clarification to the January 5 final rule.

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date of these amendments is July
26, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Steven Andrews or Mr. T. Glenn
Foster, Standards and Rulemaking Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Administration (PHMSA), U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., East Building, 2nd Floor,
PHH-12, Washington, DC 20590-0001 or Mr. Ryan Paquet, Approvals and
Permits Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>, PHMSA, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., East Building, 2nd Floor,
PHH-30, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

List of Topics

I. Supplementary Background
II. Appeals to the Final Rule
    A. Council on Safe Transportation of Hazardous Articles, Inc.
    B. Institute of Makers of Explosives
    C. Lawrence Bierlein
III. Corrections and Amendments
IV. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
    A. Statutory/Legal Authority for Rulemaking
    B. Executive Order 12866, 13356 and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures
    C. Executive Order 13132
    D. Executive Order 13175
    E. Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 13272, and DOT
Procedures and Policies
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    G. Paperwork Reduction Act
    H. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
    I. Privacy Act

I. Supplementary Background

    On January 5, 2011, PHMSA issued a final rule under Docket Number
PHMSA-2009-0410 (HM-233B) (76 FR 454) amending the Hazardous Materials
Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180) by amending the Hazardous
Materials Regulations to revise the application procedures for special
permits. Specifically, the revisions required an applicant to provide
additional information about its operation to enable the agency to
better evaluate the applicant's ability to demonstrate an equivalent
level of safety and the safety impact of operations that would be
authorized in the special permit. In addition, the January 5 final rule
made revisions to the procedures for applying for a special permit.
Changes made to these procedures include, but are not limited,
requiring applicants to provide: All known locations where a special
permit is used; the name of the company Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
or president; a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System
(DUNS) identifier; an estimated quantity of the hazardous material
planned for transportation; an estimate of the number of operations
expected to be conducted; a statement outlining the reason(s) the
hazardous material is being transported by air if other modes are
available; and substantiation that the proposed alternative will
achieve a level of safety that is at least equal to that required by
the regulation from which the special permit is sought.

II. Appeals to the Final Rule

    The following organizations and one individual submitted appeals to
the January 5 final rule, in accordance with 49 CFR part 107: The
Council on Safe Transportation of Hazardous Articles, Inc. (COSTHA);
The Institute for Makers of Explosives (IME); and Lawrence Bierlein on
behalf of the Association of Hazmat Shippers. The appellants based
their appeals on several aspects of the January 5 final rule, most
notably objecting to the requirements that applicants provide: A list
of all known locations where a special permit will be used; a DUNS
number; the name of the CEO or President of the company; and the
quantity of hazardous materials to be shipped.
    The appeals and issues of the appellants are discussed in detail
below.

A. Council on Safe Transportation of Hazardous Articles, Inc.

    In its appeal, COSTHA states that it recognizes the importance of
requiring applications for a special permit to include relevant and
usable information in the special permit application. In support of its
appeal, COSTHA requests that PHMSA re-evaluate several of the changes
made to the special permits and procedures application process. These
changes include requirements to: List all known locations where a
special permit will be used; provide estimates of the number of
operations expected to be conducted under a special permit; list the
name of the CEO or president of the company; and provide a DUNS
identifier.

    COSTHA also requests clarification on why additional data is needed
for the application of a special permit. Specifically, COSTHA notes
that PHMSA revised Sec.  107.105(a)(2) to require the name and physical
address(es) of all known locations where the special permit would be
used. COSTHA indicates that many special permits are utilized through a
company's operational and distribution operations, and that this
requirement may compel companies to report several hundred locations
where the special permit may be used. In its appeal, COSTHA expresses
the opinion that by requiring the reporting of all known locations a
special permit will be used, PHMSA is suggesting that all locations
will be subject to a possible fitness evaluation. COSTHA further states
that if PHMSA is requiring all known locations for the purposes of
enforcement, PHMSA needs to clarify whether updates must be made to the
list after the application for a special permit has been submitted. For
clarification, PHMSA's intent is for the applicant to provide a list of
the initial locations a special permit is intended to be used at the
time of the application. This list will help us track where various
special permits are being utilized and assist the special permits
division in ensuring that a special permit is being conducted in
accordance with its parameters. For additional clarification, PHMSA is
not requiring applicants to resubmit an application for those
facilities using a special permit after an application has been
submitted. Therefore, PHMSA is retaining the requirement for reporting
all known locations where the special permit will be used because we
believe it is necessary to adequately determine that all facilities
conducting business under the special permit are able to demonstrate an
equivalent level of safety as required by regulation. In addition,
PHMSA is only requiring applicants for special permits to list those
facilities where a special permit will be used that are known at the
time of an application and updated at the time of renewal.
    COSTHA also expresses concern that PHMSA did not adequately address
the additional burden to industry when adding the new requirements in
the January 5 final rule. We disagree. PHMSA carefully examined the
burden that the new requirements would have on special permit
applicants and determined that, although we are requiring additional
information, much of the data is already readily available to
applicants. In addition, we believe that the additional time required
to gather the information is greatly offset by the on-line application
process capability provided in the January 5 final rule.
    In its appeal, COSTHA asks PHMSA to reconsider the requirement for
applicants to provide the name of the CEO or president of the company.
COSTHA notes that it is not uncommon for CEOs and presidents to change
frequently due to the reorganization of a company or other reasons, and
asks whether a special permit holder would be required to amend its
application to reflect these changes. We agree. The intent of this
requirement is to provide the identification of a senior official in
the company who has responsibility for overseeing the overall hazardous
materials regulatory compliance of the company, especially the
operations under the terms of the special permit. Accordingly, we
recognize that other corporate officials may be more appropriately
identified. Therefore, PHMSA is revising this requirement to provide
for the identification of a senior corporate official with such
oversight duties.
    COSTHA's appeal asks PHMSA to reconsider the requirement for
applicants to obtain and provide a DUNS identifier. COSTHA states that
this number is typically used for credit and business transactions.
COSTHA also adds that the adopted language does not indicate whether
the DUNS identifier is optional. For clarification, the DUNS number is
a mandatory requirement. PHMSA chose this identifier as it does not
impose a cost on applicants to obtain it. The DUNS identifier will then
be used as the identification number for a facility when renewing a
special permit or applying for other new special permits. For
additional clarification, in the case of companies who have multiple
DUNS identifier, PHMSA is requiring that applicants provide only one
DUNS identifier that is most applicable to the location for which the
special permit is being utilized.
    Lastly, COSTHA asks PHMSA to reconsider the requirements in Sec.
107.105(c)(10) that requires an estimate of the number of operations
expected to be conducted or the number of shipments expected to be
transported under a special permit. COSTHA states that it will be
impossible for companies to accurately prognosticate the number of
shipments offered. COSTHA also indicates that it is not satisfied with
PHMSA's explanation in the preamble language in the January 5 final
rule regarding why it needs applicants to provide an estimate of the
number of shipments based on the best available information. We
disagree. Collecting this additional information will help us to better
ensure an equivalent level of safety is reached for each special permit
application. Applicants must make a reasonable estimate of the amount
of shipments that will take place over the duration of the special
permit. PHMSA expects applicants to provide an estimate of the number
of packages to be shipped for the duration of the special permit, based
on the history of previous shipments transported under the terms of a
special permit. In addition, if this is the initial application for a
special permit, PHMSA believes that a reasonable estimate of the amount
of shipments that will take place over the duration of the special
permit will be sufficient when applying for a special permit.

B. Institute for Makers of Explosives

    In support of its appeal, IME requests that PHMSA re-evaluate
several of the changes made to the special permits and procedures
application process. These changes include the requirements to: list
all known locations where a special permit will be used; provide a
description of operational controls; and provide a statement outlining
the reason(s) the hazardous material is being transported by air. IME
also questions whether PHMSA conducted an adequate cost/benefit
analysis in support of this final rule.
    In its appeal, IME questions why, in light of the exceptional
safety record of the commercial explosive industry, PHMSA is imposing
additional requirements without any stated foundation in underlying
safety concerns, perceived risk, or incident data. Although these
requirements apply to the commercial explosives industry, they apply
equally to all entities applying for a special permit. These additional
requirements will increase overall safety by providing us with a more
accurate description of how an applicant has established a level of
safety at least equivalent to the requirements of the HMR when
transporting its particular commodity.
    IME also requests clarification of the phrase ``would be used'' as
it pertains to the requirement in Sec.  107.105(a)(2), that
``applicants for a special permit list all known locations where the
special permit would be used.'' Specifically, IME asks whether this
language refers to locations where vehicles are based, or to all
locations where such a vehicle operates and/or delivers materials. For
clarification, PHMSA is not requesting a list of facilities where
hazardous materials moving under a special permit

are being delivered. Rather, we are seeking a list of locations where
the special permit will initially be used at the time of application.
Under the scenario of a truck operating under a special permit, we are
only seeking the address of the location at which the truck is based.
    IME notes that in the January 5, 2011 final rule, we adopted new
provision Sec.  107.105(c)(2) to require a description of all
operational controls required for the mode(s) of transportation. IME
asserts that this requirement is vague and it is unclear what level of
detail is required of industry when reporting a description of these
operational controls. For clarification, by requesting that applicants
provide a description of operational controls, our intent is for
applicants to provide any relevant schematics, diagrams, or description
of the means that would be utilized under the conditions of a special
permit, and will vary, based on the individual application. If an
operational control is not applicable to execute the conditions of the
special permit, such reasoning should be stated in the application. For
example, an operational control would be to limit transportation to
private motor carriers.
    IME also states that, in response to comments submitted to the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), PHMSA failed to illuminate the
safety rationale for the provision in Sec.  107.105(c)(5) to require
applicants who propose to ship via air to provide a statement outlining
the reason(s) the hazardous material is being transported by air if
other modes are available. IME questions the safety rationale for this
requirement and suggests that this requirement could leave open the
possibility that a special permit application for air transportation
could be refused on non-safety related rationales, including cost and
convenience. We disagree. PHMSA stresses that we have no intention of
denying a special permit application simply based on the shipment being
transported by air. PHMSA will continue to review the applicants'
submission and approve those applications, regardless of the particular
mode of transportation, that are determined to provide an equivalent
level of safety.
    IME also questions PHMSA's analysis for the additional cost and
time that will be incurred by applicants because of the increased
special permit application requirements. IME adds that while it
supports a simplified electronic application, the process of
researching and assembling the additional information required will
exceed PHMSA's estimate to complete the revised special permit
application. We disagree. PHMSA did conduct a review of the information
collection burden with respect to this rulemaking, and determined that
while we expect some increased burden from the collection of additional
information, the overall application process will become less
burdensome, and therefore, less time-consuming with the introduction of
the online application process.

C. Lawrence Bierlein, esq.

    PHMSA also received an appeal to the final rule from Lawrence W.
Bierlein on February 2, 2011. In support of his appeal, Mr. Bierlein
requests that PHMSA re-evaluate several of the changes made to the
special permits and procedures application process. These changes
include the requirements to: List all known locations where a special
permit will be used; list the CEO or president of the company; provide
a DUNS identifier; provide a hazardous materials registration number;
provide a statement justifying shipments by air; provide a quantity or
number of packages to be shipped; and provide a failure mode and effect
analysis to justify a special permit proposal. In addition, Mr.
Bierlein also raises questions pertaining to: Increased regulations
without a safety benefit; compliance and inspection issues; excessive
paperwork; fitness determinations; and the security of on-line
applications.
    Mr. Bierlein questions whether the January 5 final rule has
anything to do with safety in transportation, and states his belief
that the goal of this final rule is to ease the burden on compliance
inspectors and enforcement programs without regard to cost. He further
adds that his clients do not believe any of the additional requirements
falls within the ambit of the secretary's authority to regulate
transportation under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA).
We disagree. PHMSA is confident that the additional requirements in
this final rule will help us to better determine if an applicant is
meeting an equivalent of safety under a special permit.
    In his appeal, Mr. Bierlein adds that the new requirements in this
final rule are outrageously excessive and will overburden PHMSA with
paperwork. He adds that it will be impossible for PHMSA or its modal
administrations to monitor substantially more locations given its
already limited field staff. In addition, Mr. Bierlein states that
requiring additional information will put a substantial burden on both
PHMSA and the regulated community. We disagree. The additional
information requested is vital to accurately assess an equivalent level
of safety and the paperwork burden is greatly offset by the on-line
application capability. Through the addition of an online application
system, PHMSA will be dramatically reducing the amount of time required
by applicants to apply for a special permit. In addition, the online
application system, through increased automation, will dramatically
reduce the amount of time required by PHMSA to review and process
special permit application. The overall effect of this rulemaking will
be a more efficient and timely special permit application process.
    Mr. Bierlein also states that PHMSA is putting too much emphasis on
``fitness.'' He contends that while seriously unfit applicants should
not hold a special permit authorization, adding more criteria to the
fitness process is not necessary to avoid such a situation. While PHMSA
acknowledges this argument, collecting this additional information will
help us to better ensure an equivalent level of safety is reached for
each special permit application.
    In his appeal, Mr. Bierlein also notes that in response to a public
meeting held in August, 2010 on fitness, Mr. Bierlein filed a joint
written statement declaring that the criteria for which field
inspectors will determine safety and fitness are both unspecified and
undefined. While PHMSA acknowledges his comment, the fitness criteria
Mr. Bierlein describes is not within the scope of this rulemaking.
    In Mr. Bierlein's appeal, he notes that the new requirements in
Sec. Sec.  107.105(a)(2), 107.107(b)(3), and 107.109(a)(3) ask for the
physical address(es) of all known locations where the applicant will
use the special permit, and states that each downstream distribution
center, public warehouse, and forwarder is considered a user of the
special permit. Mr. Bierlein questions PHMSA's need for such a
voluminous amount of information. We disagree. The intent of this
requirement is to identify the initial location where an applicant will
use the special permit. It is not intended that all downstream entities
that make subsequent shipments be identified. For example, for a
special permit authorizing the use of a packaging not otherwise
authorized under the HMR, the address of the initial entity(ies) that
prepares the package under the special permit would be identified.
Persons who merely receive and reship these packages are not required
to be identified in the application or renewal.
    Mr. Bierlein's appeal asks us to reconsider the requirement for

applicants to provide the CEO or president of the company. Mr. Bierlein
notes that in only the smallest companies would the CEO be aware of the
hazardous materials transportation functions executed by that company,
and communication should be between PHMSA and the person with the most
knowledge about the special permit. We agree, and as previously
mentioned, are revising this requirement to provide for the
identification of a senior corporate official with such oversight
duties.
    Mr. Bierlein questions the requirement to require the DUNS
identifier because it has no value. We disagree. The DUNS identifier
provides applicants with a unique number that will link all data for a
particular company. This will ensure that all data on a company is
identified with that company and prevent companies from being in the
system with multiple variations of that company's spelling. For
example, company ABCD, Inc. may be entered into these data systems in a
number of ways, (i.e., A,B.C.D., Inc.; Alpha, Beta, Charlie, Delta,
Inc.; ABCD Company; etc.)
    Mr. Bierlein also states that PHMSA should not require applicants
to report their hazardous materials registration number and notes that
there are many applicants for special permits who are not required to
have registration numbers. Mr. Bierlein adds that the greatest number
of users comes from government agencies such as the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA), and the Department of Defense (DOD), and requiring the
registration numbers is useless and discriminatory against industry. We
disagree. A large majority of special permit applications come from
industry, not government. We also note that we are requiring only those
facilities that already have a registration number to report that
registration number as part of the application process. This
information is necessary in order to ensure that applicants who are
required to register have actually done so. For applicants not required
to be registered, we are requiring only a simple statement indicating
that registration is not required.
    Mr. Bierlein objects to the requirement that a statement be
provided outlining the reason(s) the hazardous material is being
transported by air if other modes are available. Mr. Bierlein expresses
a belief that the implementation of this requirement is intended to
restrict or prohibit hazardous materials air shipments being
transported under a special permit. Mr. Bierlein also suggests that a
more detailed, transparent, and substantive safety rationale be
provided in a new rulemaking before air shipments are banned under a
special permit. We disagree. A statement outlining the reason(s) the
hazardous material is being transported is necessary to determine that
an equivalent level of safety is being met for air transportation.
PHMSA will continue to review the applicant's submissions and approve
those applications based on a determination that it meets an equivalent
level of safety. We stress that we have no intention of denying special
permits simply based on the method of transportation.
    Mr. Bierlein objects to the requirement for applicants to use a
failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA), stating that it is excessive
for special permits pertaining to minor variations from the hazardous
materials regulations. Mr. Bierlein recommends we revise this
requirement by limiting it to a short list of high hazard materials, or
materials shipped in innovative packages exceeding 3,000 liters water
capacity. We disagree. We maintain our belief that this information,
along with the other required information, will help establish whether
an applicant has met an equivalent level of safety for the safe
transportation of hazardous materials under the guidelines of a special
permit. For clarification, applicants are not required to use a FMEA,
they are only required to prove with data or test results that they
will achieve an equivalent level of safety equal to that required by
regulation when seeking a special permit. Additionally, a FMEA was
provided in the final rule as an example of how to meet this
requirement.
    Mr. Bierlein also states there is no credible rationale for the
requirement to provide a quantity of material or number of packages to
be shipped, and contends that PHMSA's statement in the final rule that
this information will enable us to better evaluate an applicant's
ability to safely transport hazardous materials is self-serving without
factual support. We disagree. We maintain our belief that this
information, along with the other required information, will help
establish whether an applicant has met an equivalent level of safety
for the safe transportation of hazardous materials under the guidelines
of a special permit.
    Lastly, Mr. Bierlein notes that PHMSA's on-line application process
found on the PHMSA website continues to display the warning that it has
been penetrated by hackers. For clarification, the statement on PHMSAs
website reads, ``We have been alerted of a potential phishing website
not associated with PHMSA collecting data for Fireworks (EX) Number
Applications. It is highly advised that you do not submit application
data on any other web site not sanctioned by PHMSA.'' This warning only
advises applicants to use the official link on the PHMSA website to
apply for special permits and not third party links to ensure
applicants are submitting their data correctly to PHMSA. PHMSA's on-
line application process has not been hacked.

III. Corrections and Amendments

    In this final rule, we are making corrections to sections that were
amended by the January 5, 2011 final rule by reinserting language that
was inadvertently deleted in the final rule and clarifying that a table
of contents is only required for paper submissions. None of the
corrected sections are new requirements. The corrections are as
follows:

Part 107

Section 107.105
    This section outlines the procedures for applying for a special
permit. We are revising this section to clarify that a table of
contents is only required for paper submissions.
Section 107.107
    This section outlines the procedures for applying for party status
to a special permit. We are revising this section to reinsert language
that was inadvertently removed in the January 5, 2011 final rule.

Part 109

Section 109
    This section outlines the procedures for applying for a renewal of
a special permit. We are revising this section to reinsert language
that was inadvertently removed in the January 5, 2011 final rule.

IV. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Statutory/Legal Authority for This Rulemaking

    This final rule is published under the authority of 49 U.S.C.
5103(b), which authorizes the Secretary to prescribe regulations for
the safe transportation, including security, of hazardous material in
intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce. 49 U.S.C. 5117(a)
authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to issue a special permit
from a regulation prescribed in Sec. Sec.  5103(b), 5104, 5110, or 5112
of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law to a person

transporting, or causing to be transported, hazardous material in a way
that achieves a safety level at least equal to the safety level
required under the law, or consistent with the public interest, if a
required safety level does not exist. The final rule amends the
regulations to revise the special permit application requirements and
provide an on-line capability for applications.

B. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This final rule is not considered a significant regulatory action
under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, was not
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This final rule
is not considered a significant rule under the Regulatory Policies and
Procedures of the Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034).
    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 require agencies to regulate in
the ``most cost-effective manner,'' to make a ``reasoned determination
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,'' and
to develop regulations that ``impose the least burden on society. As
discussed in this rulemaking, PHMSA is revising the special permits
application procedures by requiring additional, more detailed
information to enable the agency to strengthen its oversight of the
special permits program. PHMSA recognizes there may be additional costs
related to the proposals to require additional information in the
special permits application procedures. However, we believe these costs
are minimized by the proposals to allow for electronic means for all
special permits and approvals actions, and the proposals to authorize
electronic means as an alternative to written means of communication.
Taken together, the provisions of this final rule will promote the
continued safe transportation of hazardous materials while reducing
paperwork burden on applicants and administrative costs for the agency.

C. Executive Order 13132

    This final rule was analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (``Federalism''). This
final rule would preempt state, local and Indian tribe requirements but
does not contain any regulation that has substantial direct effects on
the states, the relationship between the national government and the
states, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of governments. Therefore, the consultation and funding
requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply. Federal hazardous
material transportation law, 49 U.S.C. 5101-5128, contains an express
preemption provision (49 U.S.C. 5125(b)) preempting state, local and
Indian tribe requirements on certain covered subjects.

D. Executive Order 13175

    This final rule was analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (``Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'''). Because this final
rule does not have tribal implications and does not impose substantial
direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, the funding and
consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 13272, and DOT
Procedures and Policies

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-611) requires each
agency to analyze regulations and assess their impact on small
businesses and other small entities to determine whether the rule is
expected to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This final rule proposes revisions to current special permit
application requirements that may increase the time that would be
required to complete such an application. Although many of the
applicants may be small businesses or other small entities, PHMSA
believes that the addition of an on-line application option will
significantly reduce the burden imposed by the application
requirements. Therefore, PHMSA certifies that the provisions of this
final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This final rule does not impose unfunded mandates under the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It does not result in costs of
$141.3 million or more, in the aggregate, to any of the following:
State, local, or Native American tribal governments, or the private
sector.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule imposes no new information collection and
recordkeeping requirements.

H. Privacy Act

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

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 107

    Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous materials
transportation.

    In consideration of the foregoing, we are amending 49 CFR part 107
as follows:

PART 107--HAZARDOUS MATERIALS PROGRAM PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 107 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 5101-5128, 44701; Public Law 101-410
section 4 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note); Public Law 104-121 sections 212-
213; Public Law 104-134 section 31001; 49 CFR 1.45, 1.53.

0
2. In Sec.  107.105, paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) and (iii) are revised, and
paragraph (a)(1)(iv) is added, to read as follows:

Sec.  107.105  Application for special permit.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Be submitted with any attached supporting documentation by
facsimile (fax) to:<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>;
    (iii) Be submitted electronically by e-mail to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
    (iv) Be submitted using PHMSA's online system (table of contents
omitted) at: http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/hazmat/regs/sp-a.
* * * * *

0
3. In Sec.  107.107, paragraph (b)(3) is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  107.107  Application of party status.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) The application must state the name, mailing address, physical
address(es) of all known locations where the special permit would be
used, e-mail address (if available), and telephone number of the
applicant. If the applicant is not an individual, the application must
state the company name, mailing address, physical address(es) of all
known locations where the special permit would be used, e-mail address
(if available), and telephone number of an individual designated as the
point of contact for the applicant for all purposes related to the
application, the name of the company Chief Executive Officer (CEO),
president, or ranking executive officer

and the Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (D-U-N-S)
identifier. In addition, each applicant must state why party status to
the special permit is needed and must submit a certification of
understanding of the provisions of the special permit to which party
status is being requested.
* * * * *

0
4. In Sec.  107.109, paragraph (a)(3) is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  107.109  Application for renewal.

    (a) * * *
    (3) The application must state the name, mailing address, physical
address(es) of all known new locations not previously identified in the
application where the special permit would be used and all locations
not previously identified where the special permit was used, e-mail
address (if available), and telephone number of the applicant. If the
applicant is not an individual, the application must state the name,
mailing address, physical address(es) of all known new locations not
previously identified in the application where the special permit would
be used and all locations not previously identified where the special
permit was used, e-mail address (if available), and telephone number of
an individual designated as the point of contact for the applicant for
all purposes related to the application, the name of the company Chief
Executive Officer (CEO), president, or ranking executive officer, and
the Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (D-U-N-S)
identifier. In addition, each applicant for renewal of party status
must state why party status to the special permit is needed and must
submit a certification of understanding of the provisions of the
special permit to which party status is being requested.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC on July 18, 2011 under authority
delegated in 49 CFR part 1.
Cynthia Quarterman,
Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-18664 Filed 7-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER
EPA Registration Division contact: Lois Rossi,<PHONE_NUMBER>
Interregional Research Number 4 (IR-4)
Pesticide petition # 3E8202
EPA has received a pesticide petition, PP# 3E8202 from IR-4, 500 College Road East, Suite 201-W, Princeton, NJ 08540 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a (d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.498 by establishing a tolerance for residues of sulfentrazone, (N42,4-dichloro-5-[4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo-lH-1,2,4-triazol-1-yl]phenyll-methanesulfonamide) and its metabolites 3- hydroxymethyl-sulfentrazone (N-12,4-dichloro-514-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-hydroxymethyl-5-oxo-1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-yl] phenyllmethanesulfonamide) and 3- desmethyl sulfentrazone (N42,4-dichloro-5-14-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-5-oxo-1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-yl[phenyllmethanesulfonamide) in or on the raw agricultural commodity Apple at 0.15 ppm. EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d) (2) of FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.
I. Plant metabolism. The metabolism of sulfentrazone in plants is adequately understood for the existing and proposed tolerances. Crop residues found after the
A. Residue Chemistry
Pre-emergence and post-emergence uses were similar in that the major metabolites were 3-hydroxymethyl sulfentrazone and 3-desmethyl sulfentrazone. In rotational crops, sulfentrazone is metabolized via four different pathways: (i) Oxidation of the 3-methyl group to form 3-hydroxymethyl sulfentrazone, followed by further oxidation to form sulfentrazone carboxylic acid which is decarboxylated to 3- desmethyl sulfentrazone; (ii) hydrolysis of the trifluoromethyl group to form desdifluoromethyl sulfentrazone which is oxidized and decarboxylated to form desdifluoromethyl desmethyl sulfentrazone; (iii) hydrolysis of the sulfonamide group to form desmethyisuifonyi suifentrazone; and (iv) scission of the phenyl and triazole rings to produce methyl triazole. The corresponding phenyl metabolites are believed to remain bound. EPA determined that tolerances based on the parent and 3-hydroxymethyl sulfentrazone are therefore appropriate.
2.	Analytical method There is a practical analytical method for detecting and measuring levels of sulfentrazone and its metabolites in or on food with a limit of quantitation that allows monitoring of food with residues at or above the levels set or proposed in the tolerances. The analytical enforcement method for sulfentrazone was used with minor modification that eliminated several clean-up and derivatization steps that was required for GC/MSD but not for LC/MS/MS. The analytical method for sulfentrazone involves separate analyses for parent and its metabolites. The parent is analyzed by evaporation and reconstitution of the sample prior to analysis by LC/MS/MS GC/ECD. The metabolites samples were refluxed in the presence of acid and cleaned up with solid phase extraction prior to analysis by LC/MS/MS.
3.	Magnitude of residues. Sulfentrazone was soil-applied at the maximum label rate to the side of apple orchard rows in the appropriate EPA regions. The RACs were harvested at the appropriate growth stages. The subsequent analyses of the RACs and processed parts determined that the residues of sulfentrazone and its metabolites would not exceed the proposed tolerances.
B. Toxicological Profile
1.	Acute toxicity. A battery of acute toxicity studies placed technical sulfentrazone in Toxicity Categories III and IV. No evidence of sensitization was observed following dermal application in guinea pigs. In an acute neurotoxicity study in rats at gavage doses of 0, 750, or 2,000 mg/kg, a NOEL of 250 mg/kg and a LOEL of 750 mg/kg were based upon increased incidences of clinical signs, Functional Observation Battery (FOB) findings, and decreased motor activity which were reversed by day 14 post-dose. There was no evidence of neuropathology.
2.	Genotoxicty. A reverse gene mutation assay (salmonella typhimurium) yielded negative results, both with and without metabolic activation. A mouse lymphoma forward gene mutation assay yielded negative results with equivocal results without activation. A mouse micronucleus assay test was negative following intraperitoneal injection of 340 mg/kg.
3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. A prenatal oral developmental toxicity study in the rat with dose levels at 25.0 or 50.0 mg/kg/day established a maternal NOEL of 25 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight gain, increased spleen weight, and microscopic changes in the spleen, and a fetal NOEL of 10 mg/kg/day was based on fetal death, reduced body weights, and alterations in skeletal development at higher doses. A supplemental oral developmental toxicity study conducted in rats at oral dose levels of 25.0 and 50.0 mg/kg/day to test for cardiac effects at the request of the EPA, did not reveal any significant effects on fetal cardiac development. The results of this study confirmed the maternal and fetal findings of the previously conducted developmental study on sulfentrazone in rats and did not alter the study conclusions.
In a dermal developmental study in the rat at doses of 0, 5, 25, 50, 100 and 250 mg/kg/day, a maternal (systemic) No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) was established at 250 mg/kg/day. Significant treatment-related increases in the fetal and litter incidences of incompletely ossified lumbar vertebral arches, hypoplastic or wavy ribs, and incompletely ossified or nonossified ischia or pubes occurred at the high-dose (250 mg/kg/day). An additional significant increase in the high-dose fetal incidence of variations in the sternebrae (incompletely ossified or unossified) was not judged to be treatment-related. At 250 mg/kg/day, the mean numbers of thoracic vertebral and rib ossification sites were significantly decreased, a high-dose effect of treatment with sulfentrazone consistent with the significant treatment- related hypoplasia observed in the skeletal evaluation of the ribs. Therefore, the developmental (fetal) Lowest Observed Effect Level (LOEL) is 250 mg/kg/day based on decreased fetal body weight; increased incidences of fetal variations: hypoplastic or wavy ribs, incompletely ossified lumbar vertebral arches, and incompletely ossified ischia or pubes; and reduced number of thoracic vertebral and rib ossification sites. The developmental (fetal) NOEL is 100 mg/kg/day.
A developmental toxicity study in rabbits was conducted at gavage dose levels of 0, 100, 250, or 375 mg/kg/day. Treatment-related incidences of decreased feces and hematuria were noted at 250 mg/kg/day or greater. In addition, at the 375 mg/kg/day dose level, five rabbits aborted. Significant reductions in mean body weight change were observed for the dosing period (GD 7- 19) and for the study duration (GD 0-29, both before and after adjustment for gravid uterine weight) at the 250 and 375 mg/kg/day dose levels. Therefore, the maternal (systemic) LOEL is 250 mg/kg/day, based upon increased abortions, clinical signs (hematuria and decreased feces), and reduced body weight gain. The maternal (systemic) NOEL is 100 mg/kg/day. Skeletal evaluation in fetuses revealed dose- and treatment-related findings at the 375 mg/kg/day dose level. These included significant increases in both the fetal and litter incidences of fused caudal vertebrae (a malformation) and of partially fused nasal bones (a variation). In addition, at 375 mg/kg/day, significant treatment-related reductions in ossification site averages were observed for metacarpals and both fore- and hindpaw phalanges. Therefore, the developmental (fetal) LOEL is 250 mg/kg/day, based upon increased resorptions, decreased live fetuses per litter, and decreased fetal weight. The developmental (fetal) NOEL is 100 mg/kg/day.
A two-generation reproduction study in the rat at dietary levels of 14, 33, or 46 mg/kg/day in males and 16, 40, or 56 mg/kg/day in females established a NOEL for systemic and reproductive/developmental parameters of 14 mg/kg/day for males and 16 mg/kg/day for females. The LOEL for systemic and reproductive/development parameters was 33 mg/kg/day for males and 40 mg/kg/day for females. Systemic effects were comprised of decreased body weight gains, while reproductive/developmental effect at the LOEL included degeneration and/or atrophy in the testes, with epididymal sperm deficits, in the second (F1) generation males. Male fertility in the Fl generation was reduced at higher closes; litter size, pup survival, and pup body weight for both generations were also effected at higher doses.
A supplemental two-generation rat reproduction study was conducted at dietary intake levels of 50, 100, 200, or 500 ppm with a NOEL for reproductive parameters of 200 ppm. This study confirmed the reproductive/developmental effects observed in the first two-generation reproductive toxicity study. It was the conclusion of the RID/Peer Review Committee that, under the conditions of the studies reviewed, sulfentrazone caused developmental and reproductive toxicity. The results of these studies elicited a high level of concern by the Committee, since the developmental toxicity studies demonstrated embryo/fetal toxicity at treatment levels that were not maternally toxic, and significant toxic effects were observed primarily in the second generation animals of the reproduction study. Because these animals had been exposed to sulfentrazone in utero, the possibility that the observed reproductive toxicity resulted from a developmental and/or genotoxic mechanism was suggested.
4. Subchronic toxicity. A 90-day subchronic toxicity study was conducted in rats, with dietary intake levels of 0, 3.3, 6.7, 19.9, 65.8, 199.3, or 534.9 mg/kg/day for males and 0, 4, 7.7, 23.1, 78.1, 230.5, or 404.3 milligrams/kilograms/day (mg/kg/day) for females respectively. No Observed Effect Levels (NOELs) of 19.9 mg/kg/day in males and 23.1 mg/kg/day in females were based on clinical anemia.
A 90-day subchronic feeding study was conducted in mice by dietary admix at doses of 0, 10.3, 17.8, 60.0, 108.4, or 194.4 mg/kg/day for males and 0, 13.9, 29.0, 79.8, 143.6, or 257.0 mg/kg/day for females, respectively. NOELs of 60 mg/kg/day (males) and 79.8 mg/kg/day (females) were based on decreases in body weights and/or gains; decreased erythrocytes, hemoglobin and hematocrit values; and splenic microscopic pathology.
In a 90-day subchronic feeding study in dogs administered by dietary admix at doses of 0, 10, 28, or 57 mg/kg/day for males and 0, 10, 28, or 73 mg/kg/day for females, a NOEL of 28 mg/kg/day was determined for both males and females based on decreases in hemoglobin and hematocrit, elevated alkaline phosphatase levels, increased liver weights and microscopic liver as well as splenic changes.
A 90-day subchronic neurotoxicity study in the rat was conducted at dietary levels of 30, 150, or 265 mg/kg/day in males, and 37, 180, or 292 mg/kg/day in females, with a NOEL of 30 mg/kg/day in males and 37 mg/kg/day in females. The LOEL was 150 mg/kg/day for males and 180 mg/kg/day for females based on increased incidences of clinical signs, decreased body weights, body weight gains, and food consumption in females and increased motor activity in females at week 13. There were no neurohistopathological effects on the peripheral or central nervous system.
5.	Chronic toxicity. A 12-month feeding study in dogs was dosed at levels of 0.0, 24.9, or 61.2 mg/kg/day for male dogs and 0.0, 10.4, 29.6, or 61.9 mg/kg/day for female clogs in the control through high-dose groups, respectively, with a NOEL of 24.9 mg/kg/day for males and 29.6 mg/kg/day for females based on hematology effects and microscopic liver changes.
An 18-month feeding/carcinogenicity study in mice was conducted with dietary intake of 0, 46.6, 93.9, 160.5, or 337.6 mg/kg/day for males and 0, 58.0, 116.9, 198.0, or 407.1 mg/kg/day for females. A NOEL of 93.9 mg/kg/day in males and 116.9 mg/kg/day in females was based on decreases in hemoglobin and hematocrit. There were no treatment-related increases in tumors of any kind observed at any dose level.
In a 24-month chronic feeding/oncogenicity study in rats at dietary doses of 0, 24.3, 40.0, 82.8, or 123.5 mg/kg/day for males and 20.0, 36.4, 67.0, or 124.7 mg/kg/day for females, an overall NOEL of mg/kg/day in males and 36.4 mg/kg/day in females was based on hematology effects and reduced body weights. There was no evidence of an oncogenic response.
6.	Animal metabolism. A metabolism study in rats indicated that approximately 84 to 104% of the orally administered dose of sulfentrazone was excreted in the urine, and that the pooled urinary radioactivity consisted almost entirely of 3-hydroxymethyl sulfentrazone. Pooled fecal radioactivity showed that the major metabolite consisted of 3-hydroxymethyl-sulfentrazone (1.26 to 2.55% of the administered dose). The proposed metabolic pathway appeared to be conversion of the parent compound mainly to 3-hydroxymethyl-sulfentrazone (excreted in urine and feces).
7.	Metabolite toxicology. NA - Remove.
8.	Endocrine disruption. An evaluation of the potential effects on the endocrine systems of mammals has not been determined; however, no evidence of such effects was reported in the chronic or reproductive toxicology studies described above. There was no observed pathology of the endocrine organs in these studies. There is no evidence at this time that sulfentrazone causes endocrine effects.
C. Aggregate Exposure6
1.	Dietary exposure. A short-term aggregate exposure assessment was conducted to determine the total exposure to sulfentrazone residues from both dietary and non-dietary routes. Aggregate exposure to sulfentrazone was evaluated for two separate products (crop herbicide and residential lawn/turf herbicide). Exposure from these two uses occurred by multiple routes (dietary, dermal and incidental ingestion). Aggregation is conducted for dietary and non-dietary residential exposures and it is to represent reasonable conditions of exposure. The aggregate exposure estimates for all adults, adult females and toddlers were less than 100% of the PAD.
I. Food. The primary source for human exposure to sulfentrazone would be from ingestion of both raw and processed agricultural commodities, including all registered and pending crops. Pending crops include apples. In June 2012, a sulfentrazone acute and chronic aggregate dietary (food and water) exposure and risk assessment was conducted for the Section 3 registration request for new uses on: rhubarb, turnip roots and tops, sunflower subgroup 20B, succulent cowpea, succulent lima bean, succulent vegetable soybean, wheat (spring), citrus fruit group 10-10, low-growing berry group 13-07, tree nut group 14, pistachios, and crop group 18 nongrass animal feeds (DP Barcodes: D389973, D394757; PC Code: 129081). The Agency concluded that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population and to infants and children from aggregate exposure to sulfentrazone residues. A Tier 1 exposure analysis was performed to estimate the exposure for the U.S. general population as well as all adults, adult females, and children (all ages) sub-populations for raw and processed commodities that might be associated with sulfentrazone residue. Field trial data for registered and proposed uses, acceptable bridging residue data, and consumption data from the USDA Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFIIs) were inputs into the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM) software - ver. 2.14. No significant additional dietary risk was identified for registered and pending crops.
ii. Drinking water. Based on the FIRST and SCI-GROW models the EECs of sulfentrazone plus its major metabolite 3-carboxylic acid for acute exposures are estimated to be 35.8 ppb for surface water and 26 ppb for groundwater. The EECs for chronic exposures are estimated to be 7.8 ppb for surface water and 26.0 ppb for ground water (Drinking water exposure assessment for the Section 3 new use registration of sulfentrazone on rhubarb, turnip roots and tops, sunflower subgroup 20B, succulent cowpea, succulent lima bean, succulent vegetable soybean, wheat (spring), citrus fruit group 10-10, low-growing berry group 13-07, tree nut group 14, pistachios, and crop group 18 nongrass animal feeds (DP Barcode: D393777 and D397770; PC Code: 129081). The use pattern for apples is within currently-labeled rates, thus Tier I drinking water models continued to be used in this assessment.

2.	Non-dietary exposure. The primary source for human non-dietary exposure to sulfentrazone will be from post-application exposure to treated residential turfgrass. The routes of sulfentrazone exposure were dermal post- application exposure for adults and toddlers, and post-application incidental ingestion of sulfentrazone due to the hand-to-mouth behavior of toddlers. A highly conservative short-term non-dietary exposure analysis was conducted using algorithms and default factors published in US EPA's Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for Residential Exposure Assessments. The dermal exposure estimates for all adults, adult females and toddlers were 0.013, 0.016 and 0.023 mg/kg/day, respectively. The exposure estimate for incidental ingestion due to hand-to-mouth behavior for toddlers was 0.0026 mg/kg/day. The resulting total (combined oral and dermal since the relevant endpoints both have the same effect) non-dietary exposure estimates were 0.013, 0.016 and 0.025 mg/kg/day for all adults, adult females and toddlers, respectively.
D.	Cumulative Effects
In the case of sulfentrazone, EPA has determined that it does not currently have the capability to apply the information in its files to a resolution of common mechanism issues in a manner that would be useful in a risk assessment. This tolerance determination therefore does not take into account common mechanism issues. The Agency will reexamine the tolerances for sulfentrazone, if reexamination is appropriate, after the Agency has determined how to apply common mechanism issues to its pesticide risk assessments.
E.	Safety Determination
I. US Population. An aPAD of 0.14 mg/kg/day was used in the acute dietary risk assessment for females (13-49 yrs) based on an oral NOAEL of 14 mg/kg/day with a composite UF of 100X (UFA = 10X; UFH = 10X and FQPA SF =1X). This NOAEL was derived from a 2-generation reproductive toxicity study in rats based on offspring toxicity (i.e., reduced prenatal viability (fetal & litter), reduced litter size, increased number of stillborn pups, reduced pup and litter postnatal survival and decreased pup body weights throughout lactation) observed at the LOAELs of 33 (males) and 40 mg/kg/day (females).
An aPAD of 2.5 mg/kg/day was used in the acute dietary risk assessment for general population including infants and children based on an oral NOAEL of 14 mg/kg/day with a composite UF of 100X (UFA = 10X; UFH = 10X and FQPA SF =1X). This NOAEL was derived from an acute neurotoxicity rat study based on increased incidence of clinical signs and FOB parameters and decreased motor activity observed at the LOAEL of 750 mg/kg/day.
An cPAD of 0.1 mg/kg/day was used in the chronic dietary risk assessment for all populations based on an oral NOAEL of 10 mg/kg/day with a composite UF of 100 X (UFA = 10X; UFH = 10X and FQPA SF =1X). This NOAEL was derived from a prenatal developmental toxicity study in the rat based upon decreased mean fetal weights, and retardation in skeletal development evidenced by an increased number of litters with any variation and by decreased number of caudal vertebral and metacarpal ossification sites observed at the developmental LOAEL of 25 mg/kg/day.
Acute dietary exposure estimates at the 95th percentile for the U.S. general population and all population subgroups are less than 1% aPAD. A low er aPAD for females 13-49 years old (0.14 mg/kg/day) was considered in the dietary assessment, compared to all other population subgroups (2.5 mg/kg/day). The population subgroup with the greatest risk was females 13-49 year old, which utilized less than 3% of the aPAD for that sub-group. Resulting chronic risk estimates are below HED's level of concern. The US General Population category utilized 2.2`)/0 of the cPAD.
2. Infants and Children.
Acute dietary exposure estimates at the 95th percentile for all Infants and Children subgroups are less than 1% aPAD. For chronic exposure, the most highly exposed population subgroup was Children 1-2, which utilizes less than 7"/0 of the cPAD. Resulting acute and chronic risk estimates are below HED's level of concern.
F. International Tolerances
There are no Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) for sulfentrazone.


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 42 (Friday, March 3, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 13442]
[FR Doc No: 2023-04381]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas & Oil Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: PR23-33-000.
    Applicants: Bay Gas Storage Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  284.123 Rate Filing: Bay Gas Storage 2022 Annual
Adjustment to Company Use Percentage to be effective 3/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 2/27/23.
    Accession Number: 20230227-5038.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/20/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-463-000.
    Applicants: Northwest Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Non-Conforming Service
Agreement IGI Resources Amendment to be effective 3/27/2023.
    Filed Date: 2/24/23.
    Accession Number: 20230224-5194.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/8/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-464-000.
    Applicants: Millennium Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Annual Report of Operational Purchases and Sales of
Millennium Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Filed Date: 2/24/23.
    Accession Number: 20230224-5202.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/8/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-465-000.
    Applicants: Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Electric Power Cost Recovery
Surcharge Adjustment--Spring 2023 to be effective 4/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 2/27/23.
    Accession Number: 20230227-5024.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/13/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-466-000.
    Applicants: Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: RNG Tariff Provisions to be
effective 3/27/2023.
    Filed Date: 2/27/23.
    Accession Number: 20230227-5068.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/13/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-467-000.
    Applicants: TransColorado Gas Transmission Company LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: TC Quarterly FL&U Update Feb.
2023 to be effective 4/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 2/27/23.
    Accession Number: 20230227-5109.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/13/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-468-000.
    Applicants: Midwestern Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Annual Fuel Retention
Percentage Adjustment--2023 Rate to be effective 4/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 2/27/23.
    Accession Number: 20230227-5148.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/13/23.

    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.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP19-78-009.
    Applicants: Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP.
    Description: Compliance filing: Corrected Opinion No. 885
Compliance Filing-Docket Nos. RP19-78-000, et al. to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 2/27/23.
    Accession Number: 20230227-5026.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/13/23.

    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    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: February 27, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-04381 Filed 3-2-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 89 (Thursday, May 7, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27174-27176]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09466]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0361; Airspace Docket No. 20-AEA-9]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of the Class D and Class E Airspace and
Revocation of Class E Airspace; Erie and Corry, PA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend the Class D airspace, Class E
surface area airspace, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface at Erie International Airport/Tom Ridge Field,
Erie, PA; revoke the Class E airspace area designated as an extension
to Class D and Class E surface area at Erie International Airport/Tom
Ridge Field; and amend the Class E airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface at Corry-Lawrence Airport, Corry, PA. The FAA is
proposing this action as the result of airspace reviews due to the
decommissioning of the Tidioute VHF omnidirectional range (VOR)
navigation aid, which provided navigation information for the
instrument procedures at these airports, as part of the VOR Minimum
Operational Network (MON) Program.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 22, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone
(202) 366-9826, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2020-0361/Airspace Docket No. 20-AEA-9, at the beginning of your
comments. You

may also submit comments through the internet at https://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 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except federal holidays.
    FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
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 7400.11D at NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, 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 would amend the Class D airspace, Class E surface area airspace,
and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
at Erie International Airport/Tom Ridge Field, Erie, PA; revoke the
Class E airspace area designated as an extension to Class D and Class E
surface area at Erie International Airport/Tom Ridge Field; and amend
the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
at Corry-Lawrence Airport, Corry, PA, to support instrument flight rule
operations at these airports.

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-2020-0361/
Airspace Docket No. 20-AEA-9.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received 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 the
comments received. 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 https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic
Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective
September 15, 2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11D 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 Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by:
    Amending the Class D airspace to within a 4.3-mile (increased from
a 4.2-mile) radius of Erie International Airport/Tom Ridge Field, Erie,
PA;
    Amending the Class E surface area airspace to within a 4.3-mile
(increased from a 4.2-mile) radius of Erie International Airport/Tom
Ridge Field;
    Removing the Class E airspace area designated as an extension to
Class D and Class E surface areas at Erie International Airport/Tom
Ridge Field as it is no longer required;
    Amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface to within a 6.4-mile (decreased from a 7.4-mile) radius of
the Corry-Lawrence Airport, Corry, PA; and removing the extension
southeast of the airport as it is no longer required;
    And amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface to within a 6.8-mile (increased from a 6.7-mile)
radius of Erie International Airport/Tom Ridge Field; amending the
extension to within 3.6 miles (decreased from 4.4 miles) each side of
the 054[deg] bearing from the Erie International Airport/Tom Ridge
Field: RWY 24-LOC (previously the airport) extending from the 6.8- mile
(increased from 6.7-mile) radius of the airport to 11.6 miles
(decreased from 14 miles) northeast of the airport.
    This action is the result of airspace reviews caused by the
decommissioning of the Tidioute VOR, which provided navigation
information for the instrument procedures at these airports, as part of
the VOR MON Program.
    Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph
5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11D, dated
August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019, which is incorporated
by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations
listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this 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 will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would 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

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, 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 7400.11D,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and
effective September 15, 2019, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

AEA PA D Erie, PA [Amended]

Erie International Airport/Tom Ridge Field, PA
    (Lat. 42[deg]04'59'' N, long. 80[deg]10'26'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
3,200 feet MSL within a 4.3-mile radius of Erie International
Airport/Tom Ridge Field. This Class D airspace area is effective
during the specific days and times established in advance by a
Notice to Airmen. The effective days and times will thereafter be
continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as Surface Areas.

* * * * *

AEA PA E2 Erie, PA [Amended]

Erie International Airport/Tom Ridge Field, PA
    (Lat. 42[deg]04'59'' N, long. 80[deg]10'26'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.3-
mile radius of Erie International Airport/Tom Ridge Field. This
Class E airspace area is effective during the specific days and
times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective
days and times will thereafter be continuously published in the
Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension to
a Class D or Class E Surface Area.

* * * * *

AEA PA E4 Erie, PA [Removed]

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

* * * * *

AEA PA E5 Corry, PA [Amended]

Corry-Lawrence Airport, PA
    (Lat. 41[deg]54'27'' N, long. 79[deg]38'28'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of Corry-Lawrence Airport.
* * * * *

AEA PA E5 Erie, PA [Amended]

Erie International Airport/Tom Ridge Field, PA
    (Lat. 42[deg]04'59'' N, long. 80[deg]10'26'' W)
Erie International Airport/Tom Ridge Field: RWY 24-LOC
    (Lat. 42[deg]04'32'' N, long. 80[deg]11'12'' W)
St. Vincent Health Center Heliport, PA
    (Lat. 42[deg]06'43'' N, long. 80[deg]04'51'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.8-mile radius of Erie International Airport/Tom Ridge
Field, and within 3.6 miles each side of the 054[deg] bearing from
the Erie International Airport/Tom Ridge Field: RWY 24-LOC extending
from the 6.8-mile radius to 11.6 miles northeast of the airport, and
within a 6-mile radius of St. Vincent Health Center Heliport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on April 27, 2020.
Steven Phillips,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2020-09466 Filed 5-6-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P