[Federal Register: June 15, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 114)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 33682-33683]
[DOCID:fr15jn10-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

15 CFR Part 766

[Docket No. 100603238-0235-01]
RIN 0694-AE93

Export Administration Regulations; Technical Amendments

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule; technical amendments.

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

SUMMARY: In this final rule, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)
makes a technical amendment to the Export Administration Regulations
(EAR). Specifically, BIS deletes references concerning Federal court
jurisdiction for judicial review of final decisions and orders issued
in BIS export control administrative enforcement proceedings and in
administrative appeals of BIS temporary denial orders. Federal court
jurisdiction to review these orders is governed by statute, not by
regulation.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective June 15, 2010

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0694-AE93, by any
of the following methods:
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include ``RIN 0694-
AE93'' in the subject line of the message.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please alert the Regulatory Policy
Division, by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>, if you are faxing comments.
     Mail or Hand Delivery/Courier: Sheila Quarterman, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, Regulatory
Policy Division, 14th Street & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 2705,
Washington, DC 20230, Attn: RIN 0694-AE93.
    Send comments regarding the collection of information associated
with this rule, including suggestions for reducing the burden to
Jasmeet Seehra, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by e-mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>. Comments
on this collection of information should be submitted separately from
comments on

the final rule (i.e., RIN 0694-AE93)--all comments on the latter should
be submitted by one of the three methods outlined above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sheila Quarterman, Bureau of Industry
and Security, Office of Exporter Services, Regulatory Policy Division,
by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In this rule, BIS makes a technical amendment to the Export
Administration Regulations (EAR) to remove three references concerning
Federal court jurisdiction to review certain BIS enforcement orders.
Paragraph (e) of section 766.22 discusses judicial review of a final
decision and order by the Under Secretary for Industry and Security in
a BIS export control administrative proceeding. Section 766.24 contains
two references to judicial review. Paragraph (g) of section 766.24
discusses judicial review of a final decision and order by the Under
Secretary concerning the administrative appeal of a temporary denial
order issued by the Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement, and
paragraph (e)(5) of the same section includes a reference to paragraph
(g). Federal court jurisdiction to review these BIS final orders is
governed by statute, not by regulation. BIS is deleting these
provisions, which were not promulgated with the intent to create or
govern Federal court jurisdiction.
    Since August 21, 2001, the Export Administration Act has been in
lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17,
2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002)), as extended most recently by
the Notice of August 13, 2009 (74 FR 41325 (August 14, 2009)), has
continued the EAR in effect under the International Emergency Economic
Powers Act.

Rulemaking Requirements

    1. This final rule has been determined to be not significant for
the purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    2. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person is
required to respond to nor be subject to a penalty for failure to
comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) (PRA),
unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This rule does not
involve a collection of information, and, therefore, does not implicate
requirements of the PRA.
    3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications
as that term is defined under Executive Order 13132.
    4. The Department finds that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(A) and (B) to waive the provisions of the Administrative
Procedure Act requiring prior notice and the opportunity for public
comment because they are unnecessary. This rule is one of procedure,
which is exempted from the notice and comment requirements of the APA.
This rule only deletes provisions from Part 766 that discuss federal
court jurisdiction, which is an issue governed by statute, not by
regulation. Because these revisions are not substantive changes, it is
unnecessary to provide notice and opportunity for public comment. In
addition, the 30-day delay in effectiveness required by 5 U.S.C. 553(d)
is not applicable because this rule is not a substantive rule. Further,
no other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an
opportunity for public comment be given for this final rule. Because a
notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are
not required to be given for this rule under the Administrative
Procedure Act or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) are not applicable.
Therefore, this regulation is issued in final form. Although there is
no formal comment period, public comments on this regulation are
welcome on a continuing basis. Comments should be submitted to Sheila
Quarterman, Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and
Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Room 2705, Washington, DC 20230.

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 766

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Exports, Law enforcement, Penalties.

0
Accordingly, 15 CFR part 766 of the Export Administration Regulations
(15 CFR Parts 730-774) is amended as follows:

PART 766--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for 15 CFR Part 766 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.;
E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August
13, 2009, 74 FR 41325 (August 14, 2009).

Sec.  766.22  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  766.22, remove paragraph (e).

Sec.  766.24  [Amended]

0
3. In Sec.  766.24, remove the last sentence from paragraph (e)(5) and
remove paragraph (g).

    Dated: June 11, 2010.
Matthew S. Borman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-14525 Filed 6-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-33-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 131 (Monday, July 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31834-31836]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14675]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No: FAA-2018-0526]

Supplemental Guidance on the Airport Improvement Program (AIP)
for Fiscal Years 2018-2020

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is announcing the process for eligible airport
sponsors in two categories to notify the FAA of any supplemental
discretionary funding requests. The process includes two distinct
deadlines with different submission requirements. The FAA may award
supplemental discretionary funding regardless of whether the airport
sponsor previously identified the project through the Airports Capital
Improvement Plan (ACIP) process during the preceding year.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elliott Black, Director, Office of
Airport Planning and Programming, APP-1, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018
(hereafter referred to as ``the Act'') appropriated ``an additional
amount for ``Grants-In-Aid for Airports'', to enable the Secretary of
Transportation to make grants for projects as authorized by subchapter
1 of chapter 471 and subchapter 1 of chapter 475 of title 49, U.S.C.,
$1,000,000,000, to remain available through September 30, 2020.'' \1\
The Act also stipulated that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Act authorizes the Administrator of the FAA to retain up
to 0.5 percent of this amount to fund the award and oversight of
these grants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Secretary shall distribute funds provided under this
heading as discretionary grants to airports;
     The Secretary shall give priority consideration to
projects at (a) nonprimary airports that are classified as Regional,
Local, or Basic airports and not located within a Metropolitan or
Micropolitan Statistical Area as defined by the Office of Management
and Budget; or (b) primary airports that are classified as Small Hub or
Nonhub airports; and
     The Federal share payable of the costs for which a grant
is made under this heading to a nonprimary airport shall be 100
percent.
    For grants at primary airports, the normal Federal share applies
based on the airport category and project type.
    The FAA administers the AIP in accordance with FAA Order 5100.38D,
Airport Improvement Program Handbook.\2\ The AIP Handbook explains what
types of capital projects may be eligible and justified for AIP funding
depending on the airport category, project type, and specific category
or categories of AIP funding to be requested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Available online at: https://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/aip_handbook/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the FAA normally relies on the ACIP process \3\
outlined in FAA Order 5100.39A, Airports Capital Improvement Plan to
evaluate and prioritize AIP funding requests, particularly those
involving discretionary funds. Because of the unique statutory
requirements associated with the supplemental discretionary funding
made available by the Act, the FAA is hereby establishing a special
process for airports to notify the FAA of any associated funding
requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Available online at: https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/orders_notices/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/12759.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The process outlined in this notice relates solely to the selection
process. All other applicable rules and requirements apply, including,
but not limited to, the requirements for project eligibility and
justification, procurement processes, and other requirements as set
forth in the FAA orders referenced above.
    It is also important to note that this process relates solely to
the supplemental discretionary funding provided by the Act and does not
relieve any airport sponsor of its responsibilities under the existing
ACIP process for any other category of AIP funding. If an airport
sponsor has properly submitted its AIP funding requests for Fiscal
Years (FY) 2018-2020 and does not want to be considered for
supplemental funding, then the airport sponsor does not need to take
any other steps in response to this notice. Conversely, the process
outlined in this notice does not take the

place of the normal ACIP process for regular AIP funding requests for
FY 2019-2021.
    The FAA anticipates issuing grants from this supplemental funding
during FYs 2018, 2019, and 2020. However, the FAA cannot predict how
much of the funding it will obligate in each fiscal year until the FAA
receives and evaluates the requests from airport sponsors.
    Any airport identified in the National Plan of Integrated Airport
Systems (NPIAS) report \4\ is eligible to request supplemental
discretionary funding under the Act. However, as noted above, the Act
requires the FAA to give ``priority consideration'' to airports meeting
certain criteria. The FAA has identified the subset of NPIAS airports
that meet the criteria in the Act. That list is available online at:
https://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/aip_supplemental_appropriation/. The
relevant deadlines are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Available online at: https://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/npias/reports/media/NPIAS-Report-2017-2021-Appendix-A.xlsx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Deadline #1 (for requests for supplemental funding in FY 2018): By
August 8, 2018, any airport meeting the criteria for ``priority
consideration'' is invited to notify the FAA's appropriate Airports
District Office (ADO) (or regional office (RO) if there is no ADO) of
the airport's desire to be considered for FY 2018 supplemental
discretionary funding as provided in the Act.
    In submitting such notifications to the FAA, the airport sponsor
must include the following information via electronic mail (email):
     Name and official three-letter identifier of the airport,
its location, and NPIAS number;
     Brief description of the project (no more than 50 words);
     Brief explanation (no more than 500 words) of how the
project meets the evaluation criteria set forth later in this notice;
     Target timeframe for grant award and construction start;
\5\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This typically refers to the date of ``Notice to Proceed.''
The FAA recognizes that in certain types of climate, actual
construction start may be delayed due to meteorological conditions.
The FAA also recognizes that some airport sponsors may request
supplemental funding for equipment acquisition rather than actual
construction. In such cases, the airport sponsor must provide the
associated timeline and key milestones.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Brief description (no more than 250 words) explaining how
the airport sponsor is using its available AIP entitlement funds.
    The FAA requires an explanation of how the airport sponsor is using
its entitlement funds because of a statutory requirement. Title 49
U.S.C. 47120 stipulates that the FAA ``. . . shall discourage airport
sponsors and airports from using entitlement funds for lower priority
projects by giving lower priority to discretionary projects submitted
by airport sponsors and airports that have used entitlement funds for
projects that have a lower priority than the projects for which
discretionary funds are being requested.'' Therefore, as with regular
AIP discretionary funds, an airport sponsor may request supplemental
funding even if they are using their entitlements on a lower-priority
project, but the FAA is required to consider that fact as part of the
evaluation process.
    If an airport sponsor has already carried over their available
entitlements in FY 2018, the FAA may still consider a supplemental
funding request for FY 2018, as long as the airport sponsor provides an
explanation of their previous decision. The FAA will consider the
airport sponsor's explanation including the airport sponsor's future
plans for those funds.
    It is not necessary to submit a completed OMB Form SF 424,
Application for Federal Assistance, or any other documentation prior to
Deadline #1. After evaluating all requests, the FAA may encourage an
airport sponsor to prepare a final grant application if the FAA
believes the project may compete well. For projects not selected in FY
2018, the FAA will retain those requests for reconsideration during FY
2019 or FY 2020.
    For Deadline #1, the FAA will only consider grant applications for
projects for which airports have already completed all of the required
planning, airspace reviews, environmental and other permitting
requirements, and engineering design. In addition, the FAA will only
consider grant applications for which construction bids will be
received in time for the airport sponsor to be administratively
prepared to accept a grant by September 1, 2018, with construction
starting within 6 months thereafter or no later than March 1, 2019.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Please see footnote 4, which is applicable in this context
as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA will consider such requests in conjunction with the FAA's
existing responsibility to fully obligate all other AIP funds by
September 30, 2018, generally for projects that airport sponsors had
previously requested through the ACIP process.
    Deadline #2 (for requests for supplemental funding in FY 2019 or
2020): By October 31, 2018, any eligible NPIAS airport is invited to
notify the FAA's appropriate ADO (or RO if there is no ADO) of the
airport sponsor's desire to be considered for supplemental
discretionary funding in FY 2019 or FY 2020. The FAA will update the
list of airports eligible for ``priority consideration'' after
publishing the next update of the NPIAS Report, which the FAA plans to
publish in September 2018.
    Based on the funding requests received, the FAA will consider such
requests with due consideration of the FAA's existing responsibility to
fully obligate all other available AIP funds by September 30 of each
fiscal year, generally for projects previously requested through the
ACIP process.
    In submitting such notifications to the FAA, the airport sponsor
must include all of the information identified under Deadline #1, plus
the following additional information:
     Brief explanation (no more than 250 words) explaining the
status of the proposed project, including whether the project has
already been approved on the airport's current Airport Layout Plan
(ALP), the status of related environmental reviews, other required
permitting, and the level of engineering design completed; and
     For airports that do not meet the criteria for ``priority
consideration,'' a brief explanation (no more than 500 words) outlining
why the airport sponsor believes the FAA should consider the project
for this supplemental funding.
    Airports must submit the preceding information to the appropriate
ADO or RO via electronic mail in order to facilitate timely review and
consideration by the FAA. The FAA will consider grant applications for
projects where the FAA has a high degree of confidence that the airport
sponsor will be administratively prepared to accept a grant by
September 1, 2020, or earlier with construction starting within 6
months thereafter \7\ or no later than March 1, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See footnote 4, which is applicable in this context as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Airports in Block Grant States or Channeling Act States

    For nonprimary airports located in block grant states, the airport
sponsor must also provide a copy of its supplemental discretionary
funding request to the designated state aeronautical agency. The FAA
will consult with state aeronautical agencies, as appropriate, before
making decisions regarding requests from nonprimary airports in each
state.
    The FAA encourages block-grant states (and states with channeling
acts regarding Federal funds) to work with

eligible airport sponsors to coordinate potential funding requests. The
FAA will consider recommendations from state aeronautical agencies as
part of the overall evaluation process.

Evaluation Criteria

    The FAA will consider supplemental discretionary funding requests
based on (but not limited to) the following criteria:
     Eligibility and justification of the project pursuant to
existing AIP eligibility rules;
     Ability of the project to enhance the long-term economic
sustainability of the airport; \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The FAA encourages airport sponsors to provide some level of
detail regarding how the project will address unmet aeronautical
demand, increase aeronautical revenues, reduce future capital or
operating costs, or otherwise strengthen the airport's financial
stability (beyond the operational benefits of the immediate proposed
capital development). Airport sponsors should also demonstrate how
the proposed project is consistent with the airport's existing
master plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The airport sponsor's previous track record in project
delivery and grant management (including any issues related to the
airport's existing Federal grant obligations);
     Likelihood of the proposed project to be ready to proceed
into construction during the same fiscal year as grant award or within
6 months of grant award; \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See footnote 4, which is applicable in this context as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Ability of the project to compete for regular AIP
discretionary funding--i.e., FAA may give higher consideration to
projects that might not otherwise get funded or that might not
otherwise get funded as soon; and
     For requests from airports that do not meet the statutory
criteria for ``priority consideration,'' the strength of the
justification for why the FAA should consider the project.
    Please note that under both deadlines:
     The FAA will not make its conclusions public or announce
any planned grants from the supplemental funding until after completing
the required congressional notification for each proposed grant award.
     After evaluating all requests, the FAA may encourage an
airport sponsor to prepare a final grant application if the FAA
believes the project may compete well.
     Complete and timely grant applications (OMB Form SF 424,
including all required information) will still be required as part of
the final grant application package in accordance with the applicable
statutory and regulatory requirements.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 3, 2018.
Elliott Black,
Director, Office of Airport Planning and Programming, Federal Aviation
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2018-14675 Filed 7-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 141 (Friday, July 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 43998]
[FR Doc No: 2011-18555]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER11-4037-000]

Interstate Gas Supply, Inc.; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Interstate Gas Supply, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is August 8, 2011.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive 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>.

    Dated: July 18, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-18555 Filed 7-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 87 (Tuesday, May 5, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26682-26684]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09571]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0750; FRL-10008-11]

Pesticide Registration Review; Proposed Interim Decisions for
Several Pesticides; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's proposed
interim registration review decisions and opens a 60-day public comment
period on the proposed interim decisions for the following pesticides:
Bifenthrin, boscalid, chlorine gas, clopyralid, Coniothyrium species,
cyfluthrin and beta-cyfluthrin, cyproconazole, deltamethrin,
esfenvalerate, ethoxyquin, etoxazole, fenpropathrin, flower oils,
fluazifop-P-butyl, formetanate hydrochloride, Gliocladium species,
mecoprop, permethrin, phenol and salts, phenothrin, pinoxaden,
prallethrin, pyraclostrobin, pyraflufen-ethyl, mandipropamid, tau-
fluvalinate, terbuthylazine, thiabendazole and salts, vegetable oils.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 6, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by the docket
identification (ID) number for the specific pesticide of interest
provided in the Table in Unit IV, 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 Confidential Business
Information (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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For pesticide specific information,
contact: The Chemical Review Manager for the pesticide of interest
identified in the Table in Unit IV.
    For general information on the registration review program,
contact: Melanie Biscoe, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P),
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703) 305-7106; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry;
pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale,
distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the Chemical Review Manager for the pesticide of interest
identified in the Table in Unit IV.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not

contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion
in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed
except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

II. Background

    Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide
registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the
statutory standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform
its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human
health or the environment. As part of the registration review process,
the Agency has completed proposed interim decisions for all pesticides
listed in the Table in Unit IV. Through this program, EPA is ensuring
that each pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and
other knowledge, including its effects on human health and the
environment.

III. Authority

    EPA is conducting its registration review of the chemicals listed
in the Table in Unit IV pursuant to section 3(g) of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Procedural
Regulations for Registration Review at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C.
Section 3(g) of FIFRA provides, among other things, that the
registrations of pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years. Under
FIFRA, a pesticide product may be registered or remain registered only
if it meets the statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA
section 3(c)(5) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5)). When used in accordance with
widespread and commonly recognized practice, the pesticide product must
perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on
the environment; that is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the
environment, or a human dietary risk from residues that result from the
use of a pesticide in or on food.

IV. What action is the Agency taking?

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58, this notice announces the availability
of EPA's proposed interim registration review decisions for the
pesticides shown in Table 1 and opens a 60-day public comment period on
the proposed interim registration review decisions.

                                       Table 1--Proposed Interim Decisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Chemical review manager
 Registration review case name and No.                   Docket ID No.                  and contact information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bifenthrin, Case Number 7402...........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0384                          Andrew Muench,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Boscalid, Case Number 7039.............  EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0199.                         Lauren Weissenborn,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703) 347-8601.
Chlorine gas, Case Number 4022.........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0242                          Daniel Halpert,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Clopyralid, Case Number 7212...........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0167                          Andrew Muench,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Coniothyrium species, Case 6022........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0259                          Daniel Schoeff,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Cyfluthrin and beta-Cyfluthrin, Case     EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0684                          Michelle Nolan,
 Number 7405<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Cyproconazole, Case Number 7011........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0462                          Carolyn Smith,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Deltamethrin, Case Number 7414.........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0637                          Samantha Thomas,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Esfenvalerate, Case Number 7406........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0301                          Carolyn Smith,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Etoxazole, Case Number 7616............  EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0133                          Rachel Fletcher,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Ethoxyquin, Case Number 0003...........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0780                          Matthew B. Khan,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Fenpropathrin, Case Number 7601........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0422                          Robert Little,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Flower Oils, Case 8202.................  EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0628                          Cody Kendrick,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Fluazifop-P-butyl, Case 2285...........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0779                          Jonathan Williams,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703) 347-0670.
Formetanate hydrochloride, Case Number   EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0939                          Patricia Biggio,
 0091<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Gliocladium species, Case 6020.........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0439                          Joseph Mabon,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Mandipropamid, Case Number 7058........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0536                          Michelle Nolan,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>
Mecoprop, Case Number 0377.............  EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0361                          Carolyn Smith,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Permethrin, Case Number 2510...........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0039                          Ana Pinto,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703)
                                                                                347-8421.
Phenol and Salts, Case 4074............  EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0810                          Peter Bergquist,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Phenothrin, Case Number 0426...........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0539                          Patricia Biggio,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Pinoxaden, Case Number 7266............  EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0603                          Linsey Walsh,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Prallethrin, Case Number 7418..........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-1009                          Julie Javier,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Pyraclostrobin, Case Number 7034.......  EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0051                          Sergio Santiago,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Pyraflufen-ethyl, Case Number 7259.....  EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0415                          Ana Pinto,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703)
                                                                                347-8421.
Tau-fluvalinate, Case Number 2295......  EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0915                          Linsey Walsh,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Terbuthylazine, Case Number 2645.......  EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0453                          Rame Cromwell,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Thiabendazole and Salts, Case 2670.....  EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0175                          Kent Fothergill
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Vegetable Oils, Case 8201..............  EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0904                          Cody Kendrick,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The registration review docket for a pesticide includes earlier
documents related to the registration review case. For example, the
review opened with a Preliminary Work Plan, for public comment. A Final
Work Plan was placed in the docket following public comment on the
Preliminary Work Plan.
    The documents in the dockets describe EPA's rationales for
conducting additional risk assessments for the registration review of
the pesticides included in the tables in Unit IV, as well as the
Agency's subsequent risk findings and consideration of possible risk
mitigation measures. These proposed interim registration review
decisions are supported by the rationales included in those documents.
Following public comment, the Agency will issue interim or final
registration review decisions for the pesticides listed in Table 1 in
Unit IV.

    The registration review final rule at 40 CFR 155.58(a) provides for
a minimum 60-day public comment period on all proposed interim
registration review decisions. This comment period is intended to
provide an opportunity for public input and a mechanism for initiating
any necessary amendments to the proposed interim decision. All comments
should be submitted using the methods in ADDRESSES and must be received
by EPA on or before the closing date. These comments will become part
of the docket for the pesticides included in the Tables in Unit IV.
Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked
``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late comments.
    The Agency will carefully consider all comments received by the
closing date and may provide a ``Response to Comments Memorandum'' in
the docket. The interim registration review decision will explain the
effect that any comments had on the interim decision and provide the
Agency's response to significant comments.
    Background on the registration review program is provided at:
http://www.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation.

    Authority:  7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: April 4, 2020.
Mary Reaves,
Acting Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2020-09571 Filed 5-4-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 96 (Friday, May 17, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29020-29022]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11749]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0075]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Tennessee River, Mile 463.5 to 464.5; Chattanooga,
TN

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
the waters of the Tennessee River beginning at mile marker 463.5 and
ending at mile marker 464.5, extending bank to bank. This safety zone
is necessary to protect persons and vessels from the potential safety
hazards associated with the Riverbend Festival fireworks. Entry into
this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain
of the Port (COTP) Ohio Valley or designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 10:30 p.m. until midnight on June
15, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
[USCG-2013-0075]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call Petty Officer James Alter, Marine Safety
Detachment Nashville, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. Due to the need
for immediate action, the restriction of vessel traffic is necessary to
protect life, property and the environment;

therefore, a 30-day notice and comment period is impracticable. In the
future, the Coast Guard intends to publish this event as an annual
fireworks display requiring safety zones in the schedule located at 33
CFR 165.801.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delay in the effective date will
be contrary to the public interest. Immediate action is needed to
ensure public safety in the vicinity of the fireworks launching area.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The Coast Guard is issuing this safety zone under the authority of
33 U.S.C. 1231, 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195;
33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5, and 165 Subpart C; Pub. L. 107-
295, 116 Stat. 2064; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1, collectively authorize the Captain of the Port to establish and
define regulatory safety zones.
    The Captain of the Port Ohio Valley is establishing a safety zone
for the waters of the Tennessee River, beginning at mile marker 463.5
and ending at 464.5 to protect persons and vessels from potential
safety hazards associated with the Riverbend Festival fireworks. The
Riverbend Festival fireworks display takes place on the Tennessee River
and is launched from the right descending bank at mile marker 464.0.
Fireworks displays taking place on or over a waterway pose possible
hazards to the marine traffic and spectators on the waterway during the
display. The Coast Guard determined that a temporary safety zone is
needed to protect life and property during the fireworks display.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    The Captain of the Port Ohio Valley is establishing a safety zone
for the waters of the Tennessee River, beginning at mile marker 463.5
and ending at 464.5. Vessels shall not enter into, depart from, or move
within this safety zone without permission from the Captain of the Port
Ohio Valley or his authorized representative. Persons or vessels
requiring entry into or passage through a safety zone must request
permission from the Captain of the Port Ohio Valley, or a designated
representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 13 or 16, or
through Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley at 1-800-253-7465. This rule is
effective, and will be enforced, from 10:30 p.m. until midnight on June
15, 2013. The Captain of the Port Ohio Valley will inform the public
through broadcast notices to mariners of the enforcement period for the
safety zone as well as any changes in the planned schedule.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
    This safety zone restricts transit on the Tennessee River from mile
marker 463.5 through 464.5 and covers a period of one and a half hour
period, from 10:30 p.m. through midnight on June 15, 2013. Due to its
short duration and limited scope, it does not pose a significant
regulatory impact. Broadcast Notices to Mariners will also inform the
community of this safety zone so that they may plan accordingly for
this short restriction on transit. Vessel traffic may request
permission from the COTP Ohio Valley or a designated representative to
enter the restricted area.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INTFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in
this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule involves establishing a temporary safety zone to provide safety
for the spectators viewing the fireworks that are being launched on the
Tennessee River at mile marker 463.5 in for a one and a half hour
period on one day. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-
1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0075 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0075  Safety Zone; Tennessee River, Miles 463.5 to 464.5,
Chattanooga, TN.

    (a) Effective date. This section is effective from 10:30 p.m. to
midnight on June 15, 2013.
    (b) Location. The following areas are safety zones: All waters of
the Tennessee River, beginning at mile marker 463.5 and ending at mile
marker 464.5.
    (c) Enforcement periods. The safety zone described in paragraph (b)
above will only be enforced from 10:30 p.m. until midnight on June 15,
2013. Additionally, mariners and other members of the public may
contact the Coast Guard at 1-800-253-7465 to inquire about the status
of the safety zone.
    (d) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry into this zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port Ohio Valley or designated
personnel. Designated personnel include commissioned, warrant, and
petty officers of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the
operational control of the USCG Sector Ohio alley.
    (2) Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage through the
zone must request permission from the Captain of the Port Ohio Valley
or designated personnel. U. S. Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley may be
contacted on VHF Channel 13 or 16, or at 1-800-253-7465.
    (3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the Captain of the Port Ohio Valley and designated personnel.
    (e) Informational broadcasts: The Captain of the Port Ohio Valley
or designated personnel will inform the public through broadcast notice
to mariners when the safety zone has been established and if there are
changes to the enforcement period for this safety zone.

    Dated: April 29, 2013.
L.W. Hewett,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Ohio Valley.
[FR Doc. 2013-11749 Filed 5-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 30, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 86558-86560]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28872]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0236; FRL-10017-18]

n-Methylpyrrolidone (NMP); Final Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) Risk Evaluation; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing the
availability of the final Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) risk
evaluation of n-Methylpyrrolidone (NMP). The purpose of conducting risk
evaluations under TSCA is to determine whether a chemical substance
presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment
under the conditions of use, including an unreasonable risk to a
relevant potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation, without
consideration of costs or other nonrisk factors. EPA has determined
that specific conditions of use of NMP present an unreasonable risk of
injury to health. For those conditions of use for which EPA has found
an unreasonable risk, EPA must take regulatory action to address that
unreasonable risk through risk management measures enumerated in TSCA.
EPA has also determined that specific conditions of use do not present
unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. For those
conditions of use for which EPA has found no unreasonable risk to
health or the environment, the Agency's determination is a final Agency
action and is issued via order in the risk evaluation.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0236, is available online
at http://www.regulations.gov or in-person at the Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection
Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg.,
Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading
Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading
Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is
(202) 566-0280.
    Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Public Reading Room are closed to visitors
with limited exceptions. The EPA/DC staff continue to provide remote
customer service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status
information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical information contact: Seema Schappelle, Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics (7403M), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may
be of interest to persons who are or may be interested in risk
evaluations of chemical substances under TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.
Since other entities may also be interested in this final risk
evaluation, the EPA has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action.

B. What is EPA's authority for taking this action?

    TSCA section 6, 15 U.S.C. 2605, requires EPA to conduct risk
evaluations to ``determine whether a chemical substance presents an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, without
consideration of costs or other nonrisk factors, including an
unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation
identified as relevant to the risk evaluation by the Administrator,
under the conditions of use.'' 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(A). TSCA sections
6(b)(4)(A) through (H) enumerate the deadlines and minimum requirements
applicable to this process, including provisions that provide
instruction on chemical substances that must undergo evaluation, the
minimum components of a TSCA risk evaluation, and the timelines for
public comment and completion of the risk evaluation. TSCA also
requires that EPA operate in a manner that is consistent with the best
available science, make decisions based on the weight of the scientific
evidence and consider reasonably available information. 15 U.S.C.
2625(h), (i), and (k). TSCA section 6(i) directs that a determination
of ``no unreasonable risk'' shall be issued by order and considered to
be a final Agency action, while a determination of ``unreasonable
risk'' is not considered to be a final Agency action. 15 U.S.C.
2605(i).
    The statute identifies the minimum components for all chemical
substance risk evaluations. For each risk evaluation, EPA must publish
a document that outlines the scope of the risk evaluation to be
conducted, which includes the hazards, exposures, conditions of use,
and the potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations that EPA
expects to consider. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(D). The statute further
provides that each risk evaluation must also: (1) Integrate and assess
available information on hazards and exposures for the conditions of
use of the chemical substance, including information that is relevant
to specific risks of injury to health or the environment and
information on relevant potentially exposed or susceptible
subpopulations; (2) describe whether aggregate or sentinel exposures
were considered and the basis for that consideration; (3) take into
account, where relevant, the likely duration, intensity, frequency, and
number of exposures under the conditions of use; and (4) describe the
weight of the scientific evidence for the identified hazards and
exposures. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(F)(i) through (ii) and (iv) through
(v). Each risk evaluation must not consider costs or other nonrisk
factors. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(F)(iii).
    The statute requires that the risk evaluation process be completed
within a specified timeframe and provide an opportunity for public
comment on a draft risk evaluation prior to publishing a final risk
evaluation. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)
    Subsection 5.1.1 of the final risk evaluation for NMP constitutes
the order required under TSCA section 6(i)(1), and the ``no
unreasonable risk'' determinations in that subsection are considered to
be a final Agency action effective on the date of issuance of the
order. In conducting risk evaluations, ``EPA will determine whether the
chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or
the environment under each condition of use within the scope of the
risk evaluation . . . .'' 40 CFR 702.47. Under EPA's implementing
regulations, ``[a] determination by EPA that the chemical substance,
under one or more of the conditions of use within the scope of the risk
evaluation, does not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health
or the environment will be issued by order and considered to be a final
Agency action, effective on the date of issuance of the order.'' 40 CFR
702.49(d). For purposes of TSCA section 19(a)(1)(A), the date of
issuance of the TSCA section 6(i)(1) order for NMP shall be at 1:00
p.m. Eastern time (standard or daylight, as appropriate) on the date
that is two weeks after the date when this notice is published in the
Federal Register, which is in accordance with 40 CFR 23.5.

C. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is announcing the availability of the risk evaluation of the
chemical substance identified in Unit II. In this risk evaluation EPA
has made unreasonable risk determinations on some of the conditions of
use within the scope of the risk evaluation for this chemical. For
those conditions of use for which EPA has found an unreasonable risk of
injury to health or the environment, EPA must initiate regulatory
action to address those risks through risk management measures
enumerated in 15 U.S.C. 2605(a).
    EPA also is announcing the availability of the information required
to be provided publicly with each risk evaluation, which is available
online at http://www.regulations.gov in the dockets identified. 40 CFR
702.51. Specifically, EPA has provided:
     The scope document and problem formulation (in Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0743);
     Draft risk evaluation, and final risk evaluation (in
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0236);
     All notices, determinations, findings, consent agreements,
and orders (in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0236);
     Any information required to be provided to the Agency
under 15 U.S.C. 2603 (in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0743 and Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0236);
     A nontechnical summary of the risk evaluation (in Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0236);
     A list of the studies, with the results of the studies,
considered in carrying out each risk evaluation (Risk Evaluation for N-
methylpyrrolidone (NMP)) in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0236);
     The final peer review report, including the response to
peer review and public comments received during peer review (in Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0236); and
     Response to public comments received on the draft scope
and the draft risk evaluation (in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0236).

II. TSCA Risk Evaluation

A. What is EPA's risk evaluation process for existing chemicals under
TSCA?

    The risk evaluation process is the second step in EPA's existing
chemical review process under TSCA, following prioritization and before
risk management. As this chemical is one of the first ten chemical
substances undergoing risk evaluation, the chemical substance was not
required to go through prioritization (81 FR 91927, December 19, 2016)
(FRL-9956-47). The purpose of conducting risk evaluations is to
determine whether a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of
injury to health or the environment under the conditions of use,
including an unreasonable risk to a relevant potentially exposed or
susceptible subpopulation. As part of this process, EPA must evaluate
both hazard and exposure, not consider costs or other nonrisk factors,
use reasonably available information and approaches in a

manner that is consistent with the requirements in TSCA for the use of
the best available science, and ensure decisions are based on the
weight of the scientific evidence.
    The specific risk evaluation process that EPA has established by
rule to implement the statutory process is set out in 40 CFR part 702
and summarized on EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/risk-evaluations-existing-chemicals-under-tsca. As explained in the preamble to EPA's final rule on
procedures for risk evaluation (82 FR 33726, July 20, 2017) (FRL-9964-
38), the specific regulatory process set out in 40 CFR part 702,
subpart B is being followed for the first ten chemical substances
undergoing risk evaluation to the maximum extent practicable.
    Prior to the publication of this final risk evaluation, a draft
risk evaluation was subject to peer review and public comment. EPA
reviewed the report from the peer review committee and public comments
and has amended the risk evaluation in response to these comments as
appropriate. The public comments, peer review report, and EPA's
response to comments is in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0236. Prior
to the publication of the draft risk evaluation, EPA made available the
scope and problem formulation, and solicited public input on uses and
exposure. EPA's documents and the public comments are in Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0743. Additionally, information about the scope,
problem formulation, and draft risk evaluation phases of the TSCA risk
evaluation for this chemical is available at EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/risk-evaluation-n-methylpyrrolidone-nmp-0.

B. What is n-Methylpyrrolidone (NMP)?

    n-Methylpyrrolidone (CASRN 872-50-4), also called n-methyl-2-
pyrrolidone, or 1-methyl-2-pyrrolidone, is a water-miscible, organic
solvent that is often used as a substitute for halogenated solvents.
NMP is widely used in the chemical manufacturing, petrochemical
processing and electronics industries, and in semiconductor fabrication
and lithium ion battery manufacturing {FMI, 2015, 3827469{time} . In
the commercial sector, NMP is primarily used for producing and removing
paints, coatings and adhesives. Other applications include use in
solvents, reagents, sealers, inks and grouts, industrial, commercial
and consumer uses and disposal. CDR data shows that the total aggregate
production volume for NMP decreased slightly from 164 to 160 million
pounds between 2012 and 2015.

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

Andrew Wheeler,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-28872 Filed 12-29-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 37 (Thursday, February 24, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10429-10430]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4102]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2011-09]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to
improve the public's awareness of, and

participation in, this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither
publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information
in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition
or its final disposition.

DATE: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number involved and must be received on or before March 7, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2011-
0049 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keira Jones<PHONE_NUMBER>, Tyneka
Thomas<PHONE_NUMBER> or David Staples<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of
Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 17, 2011.
Pamela Hamilton-Powell,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2011-0049.
    Petitioner: Pinnacle Airlines, Inc.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 120.109(a)(1), (b), 120.115(c),
120.217(c), 120.223(a)(1), and 120.223(a)(1)(i).

Description of Relief Sought

    Pinnacle seeks relief from conducting pre-employment testing,
training, and the drug and alcohol records check for 1,000 safety-
sensitive employees they plan to hire from Mesaba Aviation, Inc. d.b.a.
Mesaba Airlines (Mesaba) following a transfer of assets. Pinnacle
contends that both airlines have been operating safely under the listed
regulations, and an exemption from these regulations would not affect
safety and would be in the public interest.

[FR Doc. 2011-4102 Filed 2-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: August 26, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 164)]
[Notices]
[Page 43184]
[DOCID:fr26au09-125]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60546; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2009-058]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change To Modify Port Fees

August 20, 2009.

    On June 24, 2009, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant
to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'')
\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to modify fees
charged to members and non-members for ports used to enter orders into
NASDAQ systems. The proposed rule change was published for comment in
the Federal Register on July 16, 2009.\3\ The Commission received no
comments regarding the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60265 (July 8, 2009), 74
FR 34613 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASDAQ proposes to increase the monthly fee that it charges for
ports used to enter orders in NASDAQ trading systems such as the NASDAQ
Market Center and the NASDAQ Options Market. The change, which would
increase the charge from $400 to $500 per month, would apply to ports
using FIX, RASH, and OUCH and would not affect ports used to receive
market data, to enter quotes, or to enter trade reports into the FINRA/
NASDAQ Trade Reporting Facility. The change would apply to both members
that obtain ports for direct access and non-member service bureaus that
act as a conduit for orders entered by NASDAQ members that are their
customers.
    NASDAQ also proposes to modify the language of Rule 7015 to make it
clear that access service fees apply to access provided to all NASDAQ-
operated systems, to replace references to NASD with references to
FINRA, and remove obsolete language regarding a trial discount that
ended in 2007. In addition, NASDAQ proposes to remove language
regarding the applicability of the rule to members and non-members.
NASDAQ believes that such language is unnecessary and potentially
confusing to the reader.
    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange \4\ and, in
particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act \5\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder. Specifically, the Commission finds
that the proposal to increase the fee that it charges for ports used to
enter orders in NASDAQ trading systems is consistent with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\6\ which requires the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among NASDAQ members and other
persons using NASDAQ's facilities.\7\ The Commission believes that the
proposed increase in port fees is equitably allocated among members and
non-members, as it is based on the number of access ports that they use
to submit orders to the market. The Commission also believes that, if
NASDAQ's proposed port fees are set too high, given the competitive
nature of the market for execution and routing services, market
participants could simply opt to connect with market centers other than
NASDAQ to access liquidity available on NASDAQ by directing order flow
to the other market centers that are required to route to NASDAQ if it
has posted the best available price. As such, the Commission believes
that NASDAQ's proposed increase in port fees is both equitably
allocated and reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \7\ The Commission notes that NASDAQ will implement the
increased port fees September 1, 2009. See Notice, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Commission believes that the clarifying changes to
Rule 7015 are consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of
the Act,\8\ which requires, among other things, that NASDAQ's rules be
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. The Commission believes that updating and removing
certain outdated or unnecessary references in Rule 7015 would provide
additional clarity to the rule text, for the benefit of market
participants accessing NASDAQ's facilities and the marketplace as a
whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\9\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NASDAQ-2009-058) be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-20594 Filed 8-25-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P