[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 231 (Monday, December 4, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57144-57149]
[FR Doc No: 2017-26078]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0384; FRL-9970-05]

Quinclorac; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
quinclorac in or on the bushberry subgroup 13-07B, the caneberry
subgroup 13-07A, and asparagus. Interregional Research Project Number 4
(IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective December 4, 2017. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before February 2, 2018,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0384, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William

Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the OPP Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review
the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket
available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Goodis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0384 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
February 2, 2018. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0384, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of November 30, 2016 (81 FR 86312) (FRL-
9954-06), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
6E8488) by IR-4 Project Headquarters, Rutgers, The State University of
NJ, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The
petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing
tolerances for residues of the herbicide quinclorac, 3,7-dichloro-8-
quinolinecarboxylic acid in or on asparagus at 0.06 parts per million
(ppm); the bushberry subgroup 13-07B, except lowbush blueberry at 0.6
ppm; and the caneberry subgroup 13-07A at 0.06 ppm. That document
referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Albaugh, the
registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the
notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
modified the levels at which the tolerances are being established. The
reason for these changes is explained in Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    Subchronic toxicity of quinclorac includes decreased body weight
gains, increased water intake, increased liver enzymes (SGOT, SGPT) and
focal chronic interstitial nephritis (rats). Chronic toxic effects of
quinclorac include body weight decrement, increase in kidney and liver
weights, and hydropic degeneration of the kidneys (dogs). At high
doses, chronic

toxicity also includes increased incidences of pancreatic acinar cell
hyperplasia and adenomas (rats). Neurotoxic effects were not observed
in any of the acute, subchronic, and chronic studies with quinclorac.
    There was no increased qualitative or quantitative fetal or
offspring susceptibility in the prenatal developmental or postnatal
reproduction studies. Developmental toxicity in the rabbit consisted of
increased resorptions, post-implantation loss, decreased number of live
fetuses, and reduced fetal body weight. These effects occurred at much
higher doses than the maternal effects of decreased food consumption
and increased water consumption and decreased body weight gain. In the
rat, no developmental toxicity was observed at the highest dose tested
(438 mg/kg/day). In the 2-generation reproduction study, parental
toxicity and offspring toxicity occurred at the same dose. Parental
toxicity consisted of reduced body weight in both sexes during
premating and lactation periods. Offspring toxicity consisted of
decreased pup weight, developmental delays and possible marginal effect
on pup viability. No reproductive toxicity occurred at the highest dose
tested (480 mg/kg/day).
    There are no mutagenicity concerns. Quinclorac is not mutagenic in
bacterial assays and does not cause unscheduled DNA damage in primary
rat hepatocytes. There is also no evidence of a genotoxic response in
whole animal test systems (in vivo mouse bone marrow micronucleus
assay). Quinclorac was negative in a mammalian cell in vitro
cytogenetic chromosomal aberration assay in Chinese hamster ovary cells
(CHO). Quinclorac was classified by the Agency as a group D
carcinogen--not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity.
Quantification of cancer risk is not required because the chronic RfD
will adequately account for all chronic effects, including
carcinogenicity, that may result from exposure to quinclorac.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by quinclorac as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document titled ``Quinclorac: Human Health
Risk Assessment for New Proposed Use on Bushberry Subgroup 13-07B,
Caneberry Subgroup 13-07A, and Asparagus'' on pages 41-46 in docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0384.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for quinclorac used for
human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule
published in the Federal Register of November 29, 2013 (78 FR 71523)
(FRL-9902-15).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to quinclorac, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing quinclorac tolerances in 40 CFR
180.463. EPA assessed dietary exposures from quinclorac in food as
follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
    For the general population including infants and children, no such
effects were identified in the toxicological studies for quinclorac;
therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment for these
population groups is unnecessary.
    However, for females 13 to 49 years of age, such effects were
identified for quinclorac. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA
used food consumption information from the 2003-2008 United States
Department of Agriculture's (USDA) National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to
residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-level residues and 100
percent crop treated (PCT).
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the 2003-2008 USDA's
NHANES/WWEIA. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-level
residues and 100 PCT.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the current cancer classification of
quinclorac, quantification of cancer risk is not required and the
chronic RfD will adequately account for all chronic effects, including
carcinogenicity, that may result from exposure to quinclorac.
    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA did not use
anticipated residue or PCT information in the dietary assessment for
quinclorac. Tolerance level residues and 100 PCT were assumed for all
food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for quinclorac in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of quinclorac. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.
    Based on the Tier 1 Rice Model and the Pesticide Water Calculator-
Ground Water exposure model, the estimated drinking water
concentrations (EDWCs) of quinclorac for acute exposures are estimated
to be 511 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 817 ppb for
ground water and for chronic exposures are estimated to be 481 ppb for
surface water and 543 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For the acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 817 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water. For the chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 543 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water.

    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    Quinclorac is currently registered for the following uses that
could result in residential exposures: Turf grass and ornamentals. EPA
assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions: Short-
term residential handler inhalation exposure is expected from the
existing uses. The quantitative exposure/risk assessment developed for
residential handlers is based on the following scenarios: Loading/
applying granules for belly grinder; loading/applying granules for push
type rotary spreader; loading/applying granules for a spoon; loading/
applying granules for a cup and shaker can; applying granules by hand;
mixing/loading/applying liquid and dry flowable formulations via
manually-pressurized handwand, a hose-end sprayer, a backpack, and a
sprinkler can; and mixing/loading/applying ready-to-use formulation via
a trigger sprayer, and a hose-end sprayer.
    Post-application short-term dermal and incidental oral exposure is
expected from quinclorac treated turf in residential settings (i.e.,
lawns). Dermal exposures were not quantified due to a lack of a dermal
toxicological endpoint. Incidental oral exposure risk estimates were
calculated for hand-to-mouth, object-to-mouth, and soil ingestion
exposures for 1 to <2-year old children playing in the treated turf.
Even though there is a granular product, an assessment for episodic
granular ingestion was not done since there is no applicable endpoint
(i.e., no acute dietary point of departure for children).
    The worst-case residential exposure scenario used in the adult
aggregate assessment reflects inhalation exposure from residential
handlers mixing/loading/applying water-dispersible granule/dry flowable
formulations with a manually-pressurized handwand and/or backpack
equipment.
    The worst-case residential exposure scenario used in the children
1<2 years old aggregate assessment reflects hand-to-mouth exposures
from post-application exposure to treated turf.
    Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic
inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found quinclorac to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and quinclorac does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
quinclorac does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The toxicology database for
quinclorac consists of developmental toxicity studies in rats and
rabbits and a 2-generation reproduction study in rats. There is no
indication of increased qualitative or quantitative susceptibility of
rats or rabbit fetuses to in utero and/or postnatal exposure in the
developmental and reproductive toxicity data.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1x. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for quinclorac is complete.
    ii. There is no indication that quinclorac is a neurotoxic chemical
and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or
additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence that quinclorac results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to quinclorac in drinking water. EPA used similarly
conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure of
children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These
assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by
quinclorac.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. For the general population including infants and
children, no adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure was
identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
quinclorac is not expected to pose an acute risk to these population
groups. However, an adverse effect was identified for females 13 to 49
years of age, and therefore an acute aggregate risk assessment was
performed for this population group.
    Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute
exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to quinclorac
will occupy 2.4% of the aPAD for females 13 to 49 years old, the only
population group of concern.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
quinclorac from food and water will utilize 9.4% of the cPAD for all
infants <1 year old, the

population group receiving the greatest exposure. Based on the
explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use patterns,
chronic residential exposure to residues of quinclorac is not expected.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
    Quinclorac is currently registered for uses that could result in
short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it
is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water
with short-term residential exposures to quinclorac.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water,
and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 2,100 for adults
and 1,500 for children 1<2 years old. Because EPA's level of concern
for quinclorac is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level).
    Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account
intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level). An
intermediate-term adverse effect was identified, however, quinclorac is
not registered for any use patterns that would result in intermediate-
term residential exposure; therefore, an intermediate-term aggregate
risk assessment was not performed nor required. In addition, since the
short- and intermediate-term PODs are the same, the estimates for
short-term duration are protective of intermediate-term duration.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the
discussion in Unit III.A., EPA considers the chronic aggregate risk
assessment to be protective of any aggregate cancer risk. As there is
no chronic risk of concern, EPA does not expect any cancer risk to the
U.S. population from aggregate exposure to quinclorac.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to quinclorac residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate analytical methods (gas chromatography/electron capture
detector (GC/ECD)) are available for enforcing quinclorac tolerances on
plant and livestock commodities. The methods have undergone successful
agency method validation trials and have been submitted to the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) for publication in the Pesticide Analytical
Manual (PAM) II as the tolerance enforcement methods. The Limit of
Quantitation (LOQ) of both methods is 0.05 ppm for all matrices.
    Other adequate LC/MS/MS based analytical methods, BASF Method
D9708/02 (for quinclorac) and BASF Method D9806/02 (for quinclorac
methyl ester), are available for data collection and tolerance
enforcement of residues of quinclorac and its methyl ester metabolite
in/on plant commodities. The validated LOQ for both methods is 0.05
ppm. Both methods monitor two ion transitions. The Agency concurred
with BASF's proposal to designate BASF Method D9708/02 and BASF Method
D9806/02 as the new tolerance enforcement methods for quinclorac and
quinclorac methy ester, respectively. These LC/MS/MS enforcement
analytical methods without the methylation step are preferable to the
previous GC/ECD method.
    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established any MRLs for quinclorac on any of the
crops covered by this document.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    Using the amended residue data in the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) tolerance calculation procedures,
the Agency is establishing the tolerance of 0.08 ppm for combined
residues of quinclorac and its methyl ester metabolite, in/on the
bushberry subgroup 13-07B, the caneberry subgroup 13-07A, and
asparagus. The tolerance of 0.08 ppm in/on the caneberry subgroup 13-
07A and asparagus is higher than the petitioned-for tolerance (0.06
ppm) because the quinclorac residue values from the submitted field
trial data did not include the residue values of methyl ester
metabolite. However, the tolerance in/on the bushberry subgroup 13-07B
is much lower than the petitioned-for tolerance (0.6 ppm). In blueberry
trials, the petitioner included the single lowbush blueberry trial
(ME03) in the tolerance calculation for bushberry subgroup 13-07B.
Trial ME03 gives a quinclorac residue value (HAFT: 0.374 ppm) that is
approximately sixteen times greater than the residue value (HAFT: 0.024
ppm) in/on blueberries from the six highbush blueberry trials. The
difference in residue value is largely attributed to application
patterns. The single lowbush blueberry sample (ME03) was subjected to
two applications--one broadcast to the ground, the other broadcast to
the foliage, whereas samples of highbush blueberry (subgroup 13-07B)
were conducted with banded soil application twice. After excluding ME03
the tolerance value of blueberry from the OECD calculator (0.08 ppm) is
significantly lower than the proposed tolerance (0.6 ppm).
    Lastly, the Agency is modifying the proposed commodity definition
of ``Bushberry Subgroup 13-07B, except lowbush blueberry'' to
``Bushberry Subgroup 13-07B'' because the lowbush blueberry tolerance
is covered by the established tolerance at 1.5 ppm in/on berry, low
growing, except strawberry, subgroup 13-07H.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of quinclorac,
3,7-dichloro-8-quinolinecarboxylic acid, in or on asparagus at 0.08
ppm; the bushberry, subgroup 13-07B at 0.08 ppm; and the

caneberry subgroup 13-07A at 0.08 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); or Executive Order 13771,
entitled ``Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs'' (82
FR 9339, February 3, 2017). This action does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: November 15, 2017.
Michael L. Goodis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
 2. In Sec.  180.463, add alphabetically the commodities ``Asparagus'';
``Bushberry, subgroup 13-07B''; and ``Caneberry subgroup 13-07A'' to
the table in paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  180.463  Quinclorac; tolerances for residues.

    (a)(1) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Parts per
                          Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asparagus...................................................        0.08

                                * * * * *
Bushberry, subgroup 13-07B..................................        0.08
Caneberry subgroup 13-07A...................................        0.08

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-26078 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 144 (Wednesday, July 27, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49169-49171]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17732]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 64

[Docket ID FEMA-2016-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-8439]

Suspension of Community Eligibility

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood
insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates
listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain
management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has
adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the
effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not
occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the
Federal Register on a subsequent date. Also, information identifying
the current participation status of a community can be obtained from
FEMA's Community Status Book (CSB). The CSB is available at http://www.fema.gov/fema/csb.shtm.

DATES: The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is
the third date (``Susp.'') listed in the third column of the following
tables.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you want to determine whether a
particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for
further information, contact Patricia Suber, Federal Insurance and
Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C
Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP enables property owners to purchase
Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from
private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer
local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new
construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale
of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts
adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement
measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that
statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR
part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the
effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance
will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of
these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of
legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is
published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities
will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of
NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such
communities will be published in the Federal Register.
    In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that
identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities.
The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the
fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance
(except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be
provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified
SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for
more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having
flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act
of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against
certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the
communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The
Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5
U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities
listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.
    Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification
letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the
community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management
measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these
notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less
than 30 days.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This rule is categorically
excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental
Considerations. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that
this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended,
Section 1315, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless
an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management
measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no
longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective
date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities
unless remedial action takes place.
    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies
that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the
applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

    Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection
of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, Floodplains.
    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

PART 64--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp.; p. 376.

Sec.  64.6  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  64.6 are amended
as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Effective date
                                                 authorization/
                                   Community    cancellation of    Current effective map   Date certain Federal
       State and location             No.        sale of flood             date            assistance no longer
                                                  insurance in                              available in SFHAs
                                                   community
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Region VI
Arkansas:
    Clay County, Unincorporated        050423  September 19,      Aug. 3, 2016..........  Aug. 3, 2016.
     Areas.                                     1979, Emerg;
                                                March 1, 1990,
                                                Reg; August 3,
                                                2016, Susp.
    Corning, City of, Clay             050030  November 1, 1974,  ......do*.............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; July 2,
                                                1980, Reg;
                                                August 3, 2016,
                                                Susp.
    Knobel, Town of, Clay              050032  July 15, 1975,     ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; June 25,
                                                1976, Reg;
                                                August 3, 2016,
                                                Susp.
    McDougal, City of, Clay            050033  October 8, 1975,   ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; June 1,
                                                1987, Reg;
                                                August 3, 2016,
                                                Susp.
    Peach Orchard, City of,            050034  May 29, 1975,      ......do..............   Do.
     Clay County.                               Emerg; March 25,
                                                1985, Reg;
                                                August 3, 2016,
                                                Susp.
    Piggott, City of, Clay             050035  May 5, 1975,       ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; August 4,
                                                1987, Reg;
                                                August 3, 2016,
                                                Susp.
    Pollard, City of, Clay             050036  April 11, 1975,    ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; August
                                                31, 1982, Reg;
                                                August 3, 2016,
                                                Susp.
    Rector, City of, Clay              050366  March 15, 1976,    ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; August
                                                31, 1982, Reg;
                                                August 3, 2016,
                                                Susp.
    Saint Francis, City of,            050037  April 22, 1975,    ......do..............   Do.
     Clay County.                               Emerg; September
                                                14, 1982, Reg;
                                                August 3, 2016,
                                                Susp.
    Success, Town of, Clay             050289  December 12,       ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    1975, Emerg;
                                                August 31, 1982,
                                                Reg; August 3,
                                                2016, Susp.

           Region VII
Nebraska:
    Colon, Village of, Saunders        310290  N/A, Emerg;        ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    September 21,
                                                2010, Reg;
                                                August 3, 2016,
                                                Susp.
    Ithaca, Village of,                310198  November 12,       ......do..............   Do.
     Saunders County.                           1975, Emerg; May
                                                1, 1987, Reg;
                                                August 3, 2016,
                                                Susp.
    Mead, Village of, Saunders         310301  August 5, 1976,    ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; September
                                                24, 1984, Reg;
                                                August 3, 2016,
                                                Susp.
    Saunders County,                   310195  April 6, 1973,     ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      Emerg; December
                                                1, 1978, Reg;
                                                August 3, 2016,
                                                Susp.
    Wahoo, City of, Saunders           310204  August 25, 1972,   ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; December
                                                1, 1977, Reg;
                                                August 3, 2016,
                                                Susp.
    Weston, Village of,                310205  October 24, 1979,  ......do..............   Do.
     Saunders County.                           Emerg; July 3,
                                                1985, Reg;
                                                August 3, 2016,
                                                Susp.

           Region IX
California:
    American Canyon, City of,          060755  N/A, Emerg;        ......do..............   Do.
     Napa County.                               January 11,
                                                1994, Reg;
                                                August 3, 2016,
                                                Susp.
    Benicia, City of, Solano           060368  May 28, 1975,      ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; May 31,
                                                1977, Reg;
                                                August 3, 2016,
                                                Susp.
    Napa, City of, Napa County.        060207  July 25, 1975,     ......do..............   Do.
                                                Emerg; September
                                                5, 1979, Reg;
                                                August 3, 2016,
                                                Susp.
    Napa County, Unincorporated        060205  January 29, 1971,  ......do..............   Do.
     Areas.                                     Emerg; February
                                                1, 1980, Reg;
                                                August 3, 2016,
                                                Susp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*......do and Do. = Ditto.
Code for reading third column: Emerg--Emergency; Reg--Regular; Susp--Suspension.

    Dated: July 11, 2016
Michael M Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Mitigation, Federal Insurance and
Mitigation Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Federal
Emergency Management Agency
[FR Doc. 2016-17732 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register: August 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 159)]
[Notices]
[Page 47493-47494]
[DOCID:fr17au06-41]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Docket No. EL06-55-002]

PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice of Filing

August 10, 2006.
    Take notice that on August 3, 2006, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
(PJM) filed revisions to the PJM FERC Electric Tariff, Sixth Revised
Volume No. 1 and the PJM Operating Agreement, Third Revised Rate
Schedule No. 24.
    PJM states that it has served a copy of the filing on all PJM
Members and on all state utility regulatory commissions in the PJM
Region by posting this filing electronically, and requests waiver of
the requirement to post by mailing paper copies.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or

protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a
motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on
the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on August 24, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-13536 Filed 8-16-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 217 (Wednesday, November 10, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69155-69157]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28094]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) Approvals and
Disapprovals

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Monthly Notice of PFC Approvals and Disapprovals. In October
2010, there were four applications approved. This notice also includes
information on one application, approved in September 2010,
inadvertently left off the September 2010 notice. Additionally, 18
approved amendments to previously approved applications are listed.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA publishes a monthly notice, as appropriate, of PFC
approvals and disapprovals under the provisions of the Aviation Safety
and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L. 101-508) and Part 158 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 158). This notice is
published pursuant to paragraph d of Sec.  158.29.

PFC APPLICATIONS APPROVED

    Public Agency: Tulsa Airports Improvement Trust, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
    Application Number: 10-07-C-00-TUL.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in this Decision: $7,875,712.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: April 1, 2019.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: June 1, 2020.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required to Collect PFC's: Air taxi/
commercial operators filing FAA Form 1800-31.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the approved
class accounts for less than I percent of the total annual enplanements
at Tulsa International Airport.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:
    Passenger loading bridges.
    Sliding and revolving doors in terminal.
    PFC services consulting fees.
    Decision Date: September 30, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lana Logan, Arkansas/Oklahoma Airport
Development Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Agency: Cities of Midland, Saginaw, and County of Bay,
Freeland, Michigan.
    Application Number: 10-07-C-00-MBS.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in this Decision: $10,449,784.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: February 1, 2011.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: February 1, 2029.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required to Collect PFC's: Air taxi/
commercial operators filing FAA Form 1800-31.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the approved
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at MBS International Airport.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:
    Phase IV terminal construction, taxiway construction.
    PFC application fees.
    Reimbursement of administrative expenses of PFC program.
    Airfield pavement marking.
    All phases of terminal construction.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection:
    Partial parallel taxiway and apron connector.
    Completion of perimeter road.
    Snow removal equipment procurement, high speed airport broom.
    Decision Date: October 1, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Porter, Detroit Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Agency: City of Bismarck, North Dakota.
    Application Number: 10-05-C-00-BIS.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in this Decision: $7,100,309.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: September 1, 2014.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: September 1, 2025.

    Class of Air Carriers Not Required to Collect PFC's: Air taxi.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the approved
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at Bismarck Airport.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:
    Runway 13/31 surface treatment.
    Taxiway C improvements.
    Install lighted wind sock for runway 3/21.
    Replace taxiway C edge lighting and signs.
    Install two boarding bridge baggage lift devices.
    North side service road.
    Environmental assessment.
    Surface treatment for runway 3/21.
    Surface treatment for taxiway C.
    Realign taxiway C.
    Runway protection zone land purchase (phase 1).
    Construct taxiway (phase 1).
    PFC application preparation.
    Purchase broom 2.
    Purchase and install additional passenger loading bridge.
    Rehabilitate a portion of taxiway C.
    Purchase broom 3.
    Modify aircraft rescue and firefighting building doors and
rehabilitate aircraft rescue and firefighting building.
    Purchase deicer and sander.
    Purchase aircraft rescue and firefighting truck with extendable
penetrating nozzle.
    Rehabilitate aircraft rescue and firefighting parking ramp.
    Brief Description of Withdrawn Projects:
    Rehabilitate or construct snow removal equipment building.
    Date of withdrawal: September 21, 2010.
    Rehabilitate snow removal equipment parking ramp.
    Rehabilitate taxiways B, C, and D.
    Rehabilitate or expand apron, phase 1.
    Rehabilitate and expand apron (phase 2).
    Date of withdrawal: October 1, 2010.
    Decision Date: October 1, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Obenauer, Bismarck Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Agency: City of Bangor, Maine.
    Application Number: 10-02-C-00-BGR.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC. PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in this Decision: $1.998,100.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: December 1, 2010.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: May 1, 2012.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required to Collect PFC's: On-demand air
taxi commercial operators.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the approved
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at Bangor International Airport.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:
    Purchase snow removal equipment.
    PFC application assistance.
    Decision Date: October 7, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Priscilla Scott, New England Region
Airports Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Agency: City of Chico, California.
    Application Number: 10-05-C-00-CIC.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in this Decision: $590,000.
    Charge Effective Date: December 1, 2010.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: December 1, 2015.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required to Collect PFC's: None.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:
    Interactive aircraft rescue and firefighting training system.
    PFC administrative costs.
    Brief Description of Project Approved for Collection:
    Reconfiguration of baggage processing and baggage claim areas--
design and construction.
    Brief Description of Project Partially Approved for Collection:
    Renovation of terminal building--design and construction.
    Determination: Partially approved for collection. The costs
associated with revenue producing concessions including the temporary
rental car concession are disapproved. Decision Date: October 25, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gretchen Kelly, San Francisco Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 623.
    Amendments to PFC Approvals:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Original         Amended
                                     Amendment       Original         Amended        estimated       estimated
   Amendment No., city, state      approved date   approved net    approved net     charge exp.     charge exp.
                                                    PFC revenue     PFC revenue        date            date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
04-05-C-O1-GCC Gillette, WY.....        09/27/10        $170,000         $34,644        07/01/08        07/01/10
93-01-C-03-AVP Avoca, PA........        09/28/10       4,588,122       4,453,122        05/01/01        05/01/01
97-02-U-02-AVP Avoca, PA........        09/28/10              NA              NA        05/01/01        05/01/01
06-04-C-01-UNV State College,           09/29/10       1,420,524       1,261,493        12/01/14        12/01/14
 PA.............................
*08-06-C-01-TUL Tulsa, OK.......        09/30/10      65,043,406      57,177,803        04/01/27        04/01/19
03-08-C-02-SLC Salt Lake City,          09/30/10       9,035,419      10,288,588        07/01/07        08/01/07
 UT.............................
03-09-C-01-SLC Salt Lake City,          09/30/10      25,265,000      24,686,131        05/01/08        05/01/08
 UT.............................
06-10-C-01-SLC Salt Lake City,          09/30/10      75,362,174      72,172,545        02/01/10        07/01/09
 UT.............................
08-12-C-02-COS Colorado Springs,        10/04/10       2,991,994       2,880,883        12/01/11        02/01/11
 CO.............................
94-01-l-04-LWS Lewiston, ID.....        10/05/10       2,509,907       2,478,343        10/01/06        10/01/06
95-02-U-03-LWS Lewiston, ID.....        10/05/10              NA              NA        10/01/06        10/01/06
*07-03-C-0l-TRI Blountville, TN.        10/14/09       1,264,140         668,500        10/01/14        07/01/13
*97-01-C-06-SDF Louisville, KY..        10/20/10      90,600,000      90,600,000        11/01/14        12/01/13
01-02-C-05-SDF Louisville, KY...        10/20/10      10,012,140      10,012,140        03/01/16        04/01/14
03-03-C-03-SDF Louisville, KY...        10/20/10       5,666,800       5,666,800        04/01/18        02/01/15
06-04-C-04-SDF Louisville, KY...        10/20/10       1,267,315       1,267,315        06/01/18        05/01/15
02-05-C-01-DCA Arlington, VA....        10/20/10      33,895,949      30,727,768        02/01/08        02/02/08
07-05-C-01-TOL Toledo, OH.......        10/27/10       1,492,000       1,680,498        12/01/11        12/01/11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notes: The amendments denoted by an asterisk (*) include a
change to the PFC level charged from $3.00 per enplaned passenger to
$4.50 per enplaned passenger. For Tulsa, OK and Louisville, KY, this
change is effective on December 1, 2010.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 1, 2010.
Joe Hebert,
Manager, Financial Analysis and Passenger Facility Charge Branch.
[FR Doc. 2010-28094 Filed 11-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M