[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 49 (Monday, March 14, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 13354]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05651]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER16-1018-000]

Guzman Renewable Energy Partners LLC; 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
Guzman Renewable Energy Partners 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 March 28, 2016.
    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
5 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 electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 8, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-05651 Filed 3-11-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 2, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 190)]
[Notices]
[Page 58025]
[DOCID:fr02oc06-134]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54495; File No. SR-CHX-2006-27]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to Retroactive
Application of Participant Fees and Credits

September 25, 2006.
    On August 10, 2006, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'' or
``Exchange'') 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 make retroactive to February 9, 2005, the
trading permit fee due to the Exchange if a CHX participant's trading
permit is cancelled intra-year. The proposed rule change was published
for comment in the Federal Register on August 23, 2006.\3\ The
Commission received no comments regarding the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54323 (August 16,
2003), 71 FR 49495.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\ In
particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\5\ which requires that the
rules of an exchange provide for the equitable allocation or reasonable
dues, fees and other charges among its members and other persons using
its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In approving this proposed rule change, 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)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal to permit CHX participants to pay the Exchange the
lesser of $2,000 or the remaining balance of the annual trading permit
fee if cancelled intra-year originally became effective on October 24,
2005.\6\ The Exchange intended but did not request retroactive
application of this amended Fee Schedule when the rule change was
originally filed with the Commission. The Exchange believes that CHX
participants who terminated their permits intra-year are entitled to a
refund. Further, the Exchange has been reserving funds for such
remuneration. The Commission therefore finds that it is appropriate to
make retroactive to February 9, 2005, the Fee Schedule change as
described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\  See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52815 (November 21,
2005), 70 FR 71572 (November 29, 2005) (SR-CHX-2005-31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\7\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CHX-2006-27) be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-16114 Filed 9-29-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: March 23, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 55)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 13697-13698]
[DOCID:fr23mr10-25]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0052; Airspace Docket No. 10-ASO-13]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Clemson, SC and Establishment of
Class E Airspace; Pickens, SC

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E airspace at Clemson, SC,
to correct the airspace description and establish Class E airspace at
Pickens, SC, to achieve an additional 1000' of airspace to support a
new LPV Approach (Localizer Performance with Vertical Guidance) that
has been developed for Pickens County Airport. This action enhances the
safety and airspace management of Clemson-Oconee County Airport, SC and
Pickens County Airport, Pickens, SC.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 7, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001;
Telephone: 1-800-647-5527; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the
Docket Number FAA-2010-0052; Airspace Docket No. 10-ASO-13, at the
beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received
comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by
submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire.
Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and
suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned
regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited
on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and
energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-

2010-0052; Airspace Docket No. 10-ASO-13) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Comments wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket
No. FAA-2010-0052; Airspace Docket No. 10-ASO-13.'' The postcard will
be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and
comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov. Recently
published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's
Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/
publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. An
informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at
the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation
Administration, room 210, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia
30337.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
to request a copy of Advisory circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend Class E airspace at Clemson, SC,
to remove Pickens County Airport from the airspace description and
establish Class E airspace at Pickens, SC, to support a new LPV
Approach developed for Pickens County Airport.
    Class E airspace designations extending upward from 700 feet or
more above the surface of the Earth are published in Paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.9T, signed August 27, 2009, and effective September 15,
2009, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority
described in subtitle vii, part, a, subpart i, section 40103. Under
that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign
the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This proposed regulation is within the scope
of that authority as it amends Class E airspace at Clemson, SC, and
establishes Class E airspace at Pickens, SC.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

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

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

* * * * *

ASO SC E5 Clemson, SC [AMENDED]

Clemson-Oconee County Airport, SC
    (Lat. 34[deg]40'19'' N., long. 82[deg]53'12'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7-mile radius of Clemson-Oconee County Airport.
* * * * *

ASO SC E5 Pickens, SC [NEW]

Pickens County Airport, SC
    (Lat. 34[deg]48'36'' N., long. 82[deg]42'10'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of the Pickens County Airport and within
3.6 miles each side of the 044[deg] bearing from the airport,
extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 11-miles northeast of the
airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia on March 15, 2010.
Michael Vermuth,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2010-6281 Filed 3-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 119 (Monday, June 22, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 35568]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15130]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2015-0793; Airspace Docket No. 15-AEA-3]

Amendment of Class D Airspace; Baltimore, Martin State Airport,
MD

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule, technical amendment; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects an error in the title of a final rule
published in the Federal Register on April 29, 2015, amending Class D
Airspace at Martin State Airport, Baltimore, MD. It should read
Amendment of Class D Airspace Baltimore, Martin State Airport, MD. This
action also corrects reference to Restricted Area R-4001C as being MSL,
and corrects the airport designation.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, June 25, 2015. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On April 29, 2015, the FAA published a final rule, technical
amendment in the Federal Register amending Class D airspace at Martin
State Airport, Baltimore, MD. (80 FR 23709). After publication, the FAA
found that the title was incorrectly typed as Proposed Amendment of
Class E Airspace, Baltimore, MD, instead of Amendment of Class D
Airspace, Baltimore, Martin State Airport, MD. This action makes the
correction. Also, in the regulatory text, the airport designation is
corrected to AEA D MD Baltimore, Martin State Airport, MD; and
references to AGL is corrected to MSL.
    The Class D airspace designations are published in Paragraph 5000
of FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 9, 2014, and effective September 15,
2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Correction to Final Rule

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Docket No.
FAA-2015-0793, amending Class D airspace at Martin State Airport,
Baltimore, MD, as published in the Federal Register on April 29, 2015,
(80 FR 23709), FR Doc. 2015-09870, is corrected as follows:
    On page 23709, column 1, line 39, remove, ``Proposed Amendment of
Class E Airspace; Baltimore, MD'', and add in its place, ``Amendment of
Class D Airspace, Baltimore, Martin State Airport, MD'', and on line 51
remove the abbreviation AGL and add in its place MSL. On page 23710,
column 1, line 10, remove ``ASO MD D Baltimore, MD [Amended]'', and add
in its place ``AEA MD D Baltimore, Martin State Airport, MD
[Amended]''; and on line 27, remove the abbreviation AGL, and add in
its place, MSL.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on June 10, 2015.
Gerald E. Lynch,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2015-15130 Filed 6-19-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 54 (Thursday, March 20, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15590-15591]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06118]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Commission Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that

members of the Commission's staff will attend the following meeting
related to the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO)--
PJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM) Joint and Common Market Initiative
(Docket No. AD14-3-000): MISO/PJM Joint Stakeholder Meeting--March 21,
2014

    The above-referenced meeting will be held at: MISO Headquarters,
720 City Center Drive, Carmel, IN 46032-7574.
    The above-referenced meeting is open to the public.
    Further information may be found at www.misoenergy.org.
    The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters
at issue in the following proceedings:

Docket No. EL13-47, FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. and Allegheny Energy
Supply Company, LLC v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER14-503, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER14-876, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER14-862, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. EL13-88, Northern Indiana Public Service Company v.
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. and PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER13-2233, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER14-381, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. EL11-34, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. EL14-21, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. v. Midcontinent
Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. EL14-30, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
v. Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER11-1844, Midwest Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-1864, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket Nos. ER13-1923-000, ER13-1938-000, ER13-1943-000, ER13-1943-
001, ER13-1945-000, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket Nos. ER13-1924-000, ER13-1926-000, ER13-1927-000, ER13-1936-
000, ER13-1944-000, ER13-1947-000, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket Nos. ER13-1937-000, ER13-1939-000, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER14-1174, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER14-1405, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER14-1406, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER14-1407, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    For more information, contact Mary Cain, Office of Energy Policy
and Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: March 13, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-06118 Filed 3-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 16, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80675-80676]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27557]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2016-0020; OMB No. 1660-0113]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request; FEMA Preparedness Grants: Tribal Homeland
Security Grant Program (THSGP)

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the
information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and
Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the
nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents,
the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by
respondents to respond) and cost, and

the actual data collection instruments FEMA will use.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before December 16, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk
Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director,
Records Management Division, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472-
3100, or email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This information collection previously
published in the Federal Register on August 22, 2016, 81 FR 56675 with
a 60 day public comment period. No comments were received. The purpose
of this notice is to notify the public that FEMA will submit the
information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and
Budget for review and clearance.

Collection of Information

    Title: FEMA Preparedness Grants: Tribal Homeland Security Grant
Program (THSGP).
    Type of Information Collection: Extension, without change, of a
currently approved information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0113.
    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 089-22, THSGP--Tribal Investment
Justification Template.
    Abstract: The THSGP provides supplemental funding to directly
eligible Tribes to help strengthen the nation against risks associated
with potential terrorist attacks. This program provides funds to build
capabilities at the State & local levels and implement goals and
objectives included in state homeland security strategies.
    Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Government.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 60.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 18,010 hours.
    Estimated Cost: The estimated annual cost to respondents for the
hour burden is $701,129.30. There are no annual costs to respondents
operations and maintenance costs for technical services. There is no
annual start-up or capital costs. The cost to the Federal Government is
$399,576.50.

    Dated: November 9, 2016.
Richard W. Mattison,
Records Management Program Chief, Mission Support, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2016-27557 Filed 11-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-46-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 89 (Monday, May 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26746-26747]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11271]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2011-0336]

Information Collection Requests to Office of Management and
Budget; OMB Control Numbers: 1625-0077, 1625-0085 and 1625-0112

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit Information Collection Requests
(ICRs) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of
its approval for the following collections of information: 1625-0077,
Security Plans for Ports, Vessels, Facilities, and Outer Continental
Shelf Facilities and Other Security-Related Requirements; 1625-0085,
Streamlined Inspection Program; and 1625-0112, Enhanced Maritime Domain
Awareness via Electronic Transmission of Vessel Transit Data. Our ICRs
describe the information we seek to collect from the public. Before
submitting these ICRs to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as
described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before July 8, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2011-0336] to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). To avoid duplicate
submissions, please use only one of the following means:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Mail: DMF (M-30), DOT, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-
140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (3) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. To ensure your comments are received in a
timely manner, mark the fax, to attention Desk Officer for the Coast
Guard.
    The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and
material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in
this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the
docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12-140
on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Copies of the ICRs are available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
COMMANDANT (CG-611), ATTN PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT MANAGER, U.S. COAST
GUARD, 2100 2ND ST., SW., STOP 7101, WASHINGTON, DC 20593-7101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Ms. Kenlinishia Tyler, Office
of Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collections. There is
one ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether these ICRs should be
granted based on the Collections being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the
Collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
information subject to the Collections; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of the Collections on respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology. In response to your comments, we may revise these ICRs or
decide not to seek approval for the Collections. We will consider all
comments and material received during the comment period.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of
the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2011-0336], and
must be received by July 8, 2011. We will post all comments received,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov. They will include any
personal information you provide. We have an agreement with DOT to use
their DMF. Please see the ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG-
2011-0336], indicate the specific section of the document to which each
comment applies, providing a reason for each comment. You may submit
your comments and material online (via http://www.regulations.gov), by
fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If
you submit a comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be
considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit
the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be
considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is
received at the DMF. We recommend you include your name, mailing
address, an e-mail address, or other contact information in the body of
your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding
your submission.
    You may submit your comments and material by electronic means,
mail, fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under ADDRESSES; but
please submit them by only one means. To submit your comment online, go
to http://www.regulations.gov, and type ``USCG-2011-0336'' in the
``Keyword'' box. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery,
submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by
mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period
and will address them accordingly.
    Viewing comments and documents: To view comments, as well as
documents mentioned in this Notice as being available in the docket, go
to

http://www.regulations.gov, click on the ``read comments'' box, which
will then become highlighted in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert
``USCG-2011-0336'' and click ``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket
Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column. You may also visit the DMF in Room
W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received in
dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act statement
regarding Coast Guard public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of
the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Information Collection Requests

    1. Title: Security Plans for Ports, Vessels, Facilities, and Outer
Continental Shelf Facilities and Other Security-Related Requirements.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0077.
    Summary: This information collection is associated with the
maritime security requirements mandated by the Maritime Transportation
Security Act (MTSA) of 2002. Security assessments, security plans and
other security-related requirements are found in Title 33 CFR chapter
I, subchapter H, and 33 CFR Parts 120 and 128.
    Need: This information is needed to determine if vessels and
facilities are in compliance with certain security standards.
    Forms: CG-6025, CG-6025A.
    Respondents: Vessel and facility owners and operators.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from 1,278,068
hours to 1,108,043 hours a year.

    2. Title: Streamlined Inspection Program.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0085.
    Summary: The Coast Guard established an optional Streamlined
Inspection Program (SIP) to provide owners and operators of U.S.
vessels an alternative method of complying with inspection requirements
of the Coast Guard.
    Need: Section 3306 of 46 U.S.C. authorizes the Coast Guard to
prescribe regulations necessary to carry out the inspections of vessels
required under 46 U.S.C. 3301 and 46 U.S.C. 3103. The Coast Guard
relies on reports, documents, records of other persons and other
methods that have been determined to be reliable to ensure compliance
with vessels and seamen requirements under 46 U.S.C. subtitle II. The
Streamlined Inspection Program regulations under 46 CFR part 8, subpart
E, offer owners and operators of affected vessels an alternative to
traditional Coast Guard inspection procedures. Owners and operators of
vessels opting to participate in the program will maintain a vessel in
compliance with a Company Action Plan (CAP) and Vessel Action Plan
(VAP) and have their own personnel periodically perform many of the
tests and examinations conducted by marine inspectors of the Coast
Guard. The Coast Guard expects participating vessels will continuously
meet a higher level of safety and readiness throughout the inspection
cycle.
    Forms: Not applicable.
    Respondents: Owners and operators of vessels.
    Frequency: On occasion. Application and plan development occur only
once at enrollment. Updates and revisions are required to be made every
two years and the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI) and the
company will review the plans every five years.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 2,496
hours to 2,774 hours a year.

    3. Title: Enhanced Maritime Domain Awareness via Electronic
Transmission of Vessel Transit Data.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0112.
    Summary: The Coast Guard collects, stores, and analyzes data
transmitted by LRIT to enhance maritime domain awareness (MDA).
Awareness and threat knowledge are critical for securing the maritime
domain and the key to preventing adverse events. Domain awareness
enables the early identification of potential threats and enhances
appropriate responses, including interdiction at an optimal distance
with capable prevention forces.
    Need: To ensure port safety and security and to ensure the
uninterrupted flow of commerce.
    Forms: None.
    Respondents: Owners or operators of certain vessels.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 150 hours
to 204 hours a year.

    Dated: April 29, 2011.
R.E. Day,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Command,
Control, Communications, Computers and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. 2011-11271 Filed 5-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 211 (Wednesday, October 31, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65827-65831]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26757]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0225; FRL-9360-9]

Trifloxystrobin; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation amends tolerances for residues of
trifloxystrobin in or on almond hulls; and Vegetable, root, except
sugarbeet, subgroup 1B, except radish. Bayer CropScience requested
amendments to these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective October 31, 2012. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before December 31, 2012,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0225, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-
5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dominic Schuler, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0225 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
December 31, 2012. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding

any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the
public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR
part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit
the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0225, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm.

Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of July, 25 2012 (77 FR 43565) (FRL-9353-
6), EPA issued a notice pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 1F7930)
by Bayer CropScience, 2 TW Alexander Dr., RTP, NC 27709. The petition
requested that 40 CFR 180.555 be amended by increasing tolerances for
residues of the fungicide trifloxystrobin, (benzeneacetic acid, (E,E)-
[alpha]-(methoxyimino)-2-[[[[1-[3-
(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]ethylidene]amino]oxy] methyl]-methyl ester), in
or on almond hulls at 9.0 parts per million (ppm). That notice
referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Bayer CropScience, the
registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the
notice of filing. Bayer CropScience's petition also requested that EPA
delete the trifloxystrobin tolerance for ``Vegetable, root, except
sugar beet, subgroup 1B, except radish.'' This tolerance was superseded
by the establishment of the tolerance ``Vegetable, root, except sugar
beet, subgroup 1B'' in the Federal Register of January 2, 2008 (73 FR
52). Inadvertently, EPA failed to remove the ``Vegetable, root, except
sugar beet, subgroup 1B, except radish'' tolerance when it established
the broader ``Vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B''
tolerance.
    In addition to the petitioner's requests EPA has deleted the
tolerance for almond. The reason for this change is explained in Unit
IV.D.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to amend 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 amending 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 trifloxystrobin including
exposure resulting from the tolerances amended by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with trifloxystrobin
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.
    Trifloxystrobin exhibits very low toxicity following single oral,
dermal and inhalation exposures. It is a strong dermal sensitizer. In
repeated dose tests in rats, the liver is the target organ for
trifloxystrobin; toxicity is induced following oral and dermal exposure
for 28 days. There is no evidence of increased susceptibility following
prenatal exposure to rats and rabbits and postnatal exposures to rats.
Trifloxystrobin was determined not to be carcinogenic in mice or rats
following long-term dietary administration. Trifloxystrobin is positive
for mutagenicity in Chinese Hamster V79 cells, albeit at cytotoxic dose
levels. However, trifloxystrobin is negative in the remaining
mutagenicity studies.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by trifloxystrobin as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in the final rule
published in the Federal Register of June 11, 2010 (75 FR 33190) (FRL-
8829-2), and at http://www.regulations.gov in the document
``Trifloxystrobin. Human Health Risk Assessment for a Section 3
Petition Proposing Increased Tolerances for Residues in/on Field, Sweet
and Pop Corn,'' pp. 17-21 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0278.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

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

the final rule published in the Federal Register of June 11, 2010 (75
FR 33190).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to trifloxystrobin, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing trifloxystrobin
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.555. EPA assessed dietary exposures from
trifloxystrobin in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. Such effects were identified
for trifloxystrobin. In estimating acute dietary exposure for females
13-49 years old, EPA conducted an analysis using the Dietary Exposure
Evaluation Model (DEEM\TM\ 7.81), which used food consumption
information from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by
Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA used tolerance
level residues. EPA assumed all commodities with established or
proposed tolerances were treated with trifloxystrobin.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996
and 1998 CSFII. As to residue levels in food, EPA used tolerance level
residues for all commodities with the exception of apples, oranges and
grapes. For these commodities EPA used anticipated residues from field
residue trials. EPA assumed all commodities with established or
proposed tolerances were treated with trifloxystrobin.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that trifloxystrobin does not pose a cancer risk to humans.
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing
cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue information. Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA
authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the anticipated
residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual levels of
pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If EPA relies on
such information, EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1)
that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is established,
modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels in food are
not above the levels anticipated. For the present action, EPA will
issue such Data Call-Ins as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E)
and authorized under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to
be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of issuance of these
tolerances.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for trifloxystrobin in drinking water. These simulation
models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/
transport characteristics of trifloxystrobin. Further information
regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure
assessment can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS), and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-
GROW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of
trifloxystrobin plus its major degradation product, are estimated to be
47.98 parts per billion (ppb) and 47.31 ppb for surface water for acute
and chronic exposures, respectively. Modeled estimates of drinking
water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure
model.
    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).
    Trifloxystrobin is currently registered for the following uses that
could result in residential exposures: Ornamentals and turfgrass. EPA
assessed residential exposure under the following exposure scenarios:
Adult post application dermal exposure; and children's post-application
dermal and/or hand-to-mouth exposure. Further information regarding EPA
standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may
be found at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/residential-exposure-sop.html.
    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 trifloxystrobin to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and trifloxystrobin does not appear
to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
trifloxystrobin 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://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

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. There is no indication of
increased susceptibility of rat or rabbits to trifloxystrobin. In the
prenatal developmental study in rats, there was no developmental
toxicity at the limit dose. In the prenatal developmental study in
rabbits, developmental toxicity was seen at a dose that was higher than
the dose that caused maternal toxicity. In the 2-generation
reproduction study, there was no offspring toxicity at the highest dose
tested.
    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 database is complete except for an inhalation study. An
immunotoxicity study has been submitted; preliminary examination of the
data found no evidence of immunotoxicity. In addition, the entire
trifloxystrobin toxicity database was examined and there was no
indication that this chemical directly targets the immune system. EPA
does not believe that the immunotoxicity study will result in a dose
less than the points of departure already used in this risk assessment
and an additional database uncertainty factor (UF) for potential
immunotoxicity

does not need to be applied. Regarding the requirement for an
inhalation toxicity study, the Agency has increased its focus on the
uncertainties associated with route-to-route extrapolation (i.e., the
use of oral toxicity studies for inhalation risk assessment) and is
presently requiring inhalation toxicity studies more frequently.
Although an inhalation toxicity study is now required for
trifloxystrobin based on the current weight of the evidence approach,
residential inhalation exposure is not anticipated; therefore, there
are no uncertainties with respect to residential inhalation exposures
to trifloxystrobin and no need to retain an additional database
uncertainty factor for this safety finding.
    ii. There is no indication that trifloxystrobin is a neurotoxic
chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study
or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity. A waiver for a
subchronic neurotoxicity study has been granted. There is no evidence
of neurotoxicity in subchronic and chronic toxicity studies (rats,
dogs, mice), in developmental toxicity studies (rats, rabbits), or in a
reproductive toxicity study (rats). There is no concern for
neurotoxicity for trifloxystrobin based on the available database,
limited findings in an acute neurotoxicity study, and lack of
neurotoxicity in other fungicides of the strobilurin class.
    iii. There is no evidence that trifloxystrobin 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 acute dietary exposure assessment was unrefined, and the
chronic dietary exposure assessment was partially refined, assuming
100% crop treated and tolerance-level residues for all commodities
except for apples, grapes, and oranges where the average field trial
residues were used. By using these screening-level assessments with
minor refinement, actual exposures/risks from residues in food will not
be underestimated. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in
the ground water and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to
trifloxystrobin 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 trifloxystrobin.

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 population adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic population adjusted
dose (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime
probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure.
Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by
comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure
to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to trifloxystrobin will occupy 1.9% of the aPAD for females 13-49 years
old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
trifloxystrobin from food and water will utilize 64% of the cPAD for
children 1-2 years 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
trifloxystrobin 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).
    Trifloxystrobin 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 trifloxystrobin.
    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 1,100 for adults
(dermal residential + dietary food and drinking water exposures); 650
for children 1-2 years (dermal residential + dietary food and drinking
water exposures); and 130 for children 1-2 years (incidental oral
residential + dietary food and drinking water exposures). Because EPA's
level of concern for trifloxystrobin is a MOE of 100 or less, 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). Trifloxystrobin is not expected to pose an intermediate-term
risk based on a short soil half-life (approximately 2 days).
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, trifloxystrobin is not expected to pose a cancer risk to
humans.
    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 trifloxystrobin residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (gas chromatography with nitrogen
phosphorus detection (GC/NPD), Method AG-659A and liquid chromatography
with tandem mass spectrometry detection (LC/MS/MS), Method No. 200177)
is available to enforce the tolerance expression.
    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has established an MRL for trifloxystrobin in or on
almond hulls at 3.0 ppm. This MRL is different than the proposed
amended tolerance at 9.0 ppm for trifloxystrobin in the United States.

    Previously, the domestic tolerance and Codex MRL of trifloxystrobin
were harmonized at 3.0 ppm. The proposed amendment, to reduce the
preharvest interval of almond hulls from 60 days to 14 days requires an
increase in the tolerance level from 3.0 ppm to 9.0 ppm.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    EPA is deleting the existing tolerance for almonds. The removal of
the specific tolerance for almonds is a result of the coverage of
almonds within the established tolerance for nut, tree, group 14 at
0.04 ppm.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, the tolerance is amended for residues of
trifloxystrobin, (benzeneacetic acid, (E,E)-[alpha]-(methoxyimino)-2-
[[[[1-[3(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]ethylidene]amino] oxy]methyl]-methyl
ester), in or on almond, hulls from 3.0 ppm to 9.0 ppm. EPA is also
granting the petitioner's request to remove the tolerance for
Vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B, except radish. This
tolerance should have been removed by EPA in its January 2, 2008
rulemaking, (73 FR 52) (FRL-8342-6), that added a tolerance for
``Vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B.'' The ``Vegetable,
root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B'' tolerance was intended as a
replacement for the tolerance ``Vegetable, root, except sugar beet,
subgroup 1B, except radish.'' EPA is correcting that error in this
action. Finally, the specific tolerance is removed for almonds because
this commodity is covered by crop group tolerances.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d)
in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has
been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule
is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain
any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

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: October 15, 2012.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.555, in the table in paragraph (a), remove the entries
for ``Almond'' and ``Vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B,
except radish'' and revise the entry for ``Almond, hulls'' to read as
follows:

Sec.  180.555  Trifloxystrobin; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

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

                                * * * * *
Almond, hulls..............................................          9.0

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-26757 Filed 10-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 23 (Thursday, February 3, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 6128]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2350]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER11-2753-000]

Cedar Point Wind, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

January 27, 2011.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding
Cedar Point Wind, 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 February 16, 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>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-2350 Filed 2-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 7, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 130)]
[Notices]
[Page 38637]
[DOCID:fr07jy06-62]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Comment Meeting

June 28, 2006.

Millennium Pipeline L.L.C. (Docket Nos. CP98-150-006, CP98-150-007, and
CP98-150-008); Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation (Docket Nos. CP98-
151-003, CP98-151-004, and CP05-19-000); Empire State Pipeline and
Empire Pipeline, Inc. ( Docket Nos. CP06-5-000, CP06-6-000, and CP06-7-
000); Algonquin Gas Transmission System ( Docket No. CP06-76-000); and
Iroquois Gas Transmission System (Docket No. CP02-31-002)

    On July 18, 2006, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff
will conduct comment meeting for the purpose of hearing comments on the
draft supplemental environmental impact statement (DSEIS) for the
Northeast (NE)-07 Project which was issued on June 15, 2006 and which
you should have received. The NE-07 Project would involve the
construction and operation of natural gas facilities as proposed and
described in the above-referenced dockets in the states of New York,
New Jersey, and Connecticut and would include:
     The Millennium Pipeline Project--Phase I proposed by
Millennium Pipeline L.L.C. and Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation
(Columbia);
     The Line A-5 Replacement Project proposed by Columbia;
     The Empire Connector Project proposed by Empire State
Pipeline and Empire Pipeline, Inc.;
     The Ramapo Expansion Project proposed by Algonquin Gas
Transmission System; and
     The MarketAccess Project proposed by Iroquois Gas
Transmission System.
    The SDEIS comment meeting will be on July 18, 2006, and will begin
at 6 p.m. and will end no later than 9 p.m. (EST). The meeting will be
held at: Brookfield High School Auditorium, 45 Longmeadow Hill Road,
Brookfield, Connecticut.
    Additional information about the project and the comment meeting is
available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-
208-FERC.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-10619 Filed 7-6-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 244 (Tuesday, December 21, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 80046]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31935]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13883-000]

ORPC Alaska, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

December 14, 2010.
    On November 22, 2010, ORPC Alaska, LLC filed an application for a
preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act
(FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Nenana RivGen Power
Project (Nenana Project) to be located on the Tanana River in the
vicinity of Nenana, Alaska, in the unorganized borough of Yukon-
Koyukuk, Alaska. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued,
is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application
during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the
permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise
enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express
permission.
    The proposed Nenana Project will consist of the following: (1) Up
to six 50-kilowatt RivGen turbine-generator modules with a combined
capacity of 300 kilowatts; (2) an approximately 450-foot-long, 24.9-
kilovolt underwater transmission cable from the module site to a shore
station on the north bank of the Tanana River, or an alternate
transmission cable configuration that is yet to be determined; and (3)
appurtenant facilities. The Nenana Project would operate 140 days per
year, and the estimated annual generation would be 721 megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Monty Worthington, Director of Project
Development, ORPC Alaska, LLC, 725 Christensen Drive, Suite A,
Anchorage, AK 99501; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Jennifer Harper<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support. Although the Commission strongly encourages electronic filing,
documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an original and
seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-13883-000) in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-31935 Filed 12-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 225 (Tuesday, November 22, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 83923]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28014]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0012]

Hours of Service of Drivers: American Trucking Associations, Inc.
(ATA) Exemption; FAST Act Extension of Compliance Date

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

ACTION: Notice; extension of exemption.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces the extension of the exemption from the 30-
minute rest break requirement granted to the American Trucking
Associations, Inc. (ATA) on August 21, 2015, on behalf of motor
carriers whose drivers transport security-sensitive hazardous materials
(HM) requiring constant attendance on the vehicle. The Agency extends
the expiration date from August 21, 2015 to August 20, 2020, in
response to section 5206(b)(2)(A) of the ``Fixing America's Surface
Transportation Act'' (FAST Act), which extends hours-of-service (HOS)
exemptions in effect on the date of enactment to 5 years from their
date of issuance. The ATA rest break exemption is limited to drivers
transporting HM loads requiring placarding under the HM regulations or
select agents and toxins identified in the HM regulations that do not
require placarding, and who have filed security plans requiring
constant attendance of HM. The Agency previously determined that the
CMV operations of drivers under this exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level of safety that
would be obtained in the absence of the exemption.

DATES: This limited exemption is effective from August 21, 2015,
through August 20, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Thomas Yager, Chief, FMCSA Driver
and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle
Safety Standards; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Legal Basis

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from certain parts of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations. FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in
the Federal Register [49 CFR 381.315(a)].
    Section 5206(b)(2)(A) of the FAST Act requires FMCSA to extend any
exemption from any provision of the HOS regulations under 49 CFR part
395 that was in effect on the date of enactment of the Act to a period
of 5 years from the date the exemption was granted. The exemption may
be renewed. Because this action merely implements a statutory mandate
that took effect on the date of enactment of the FAST Act, notice and
comment are not required.

ATA Exemption

    ATA, a trade association, applied for a limited exemption from the
mandatory rest break requirement of 49 CFR 395.3(a)(3)(ii) on behalf of
all motor carriers whose drivers transport HM loads subject to the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's security plan
requirement.
    FMCSA reviewed ATA's application and the public comments and
concluded that motor carriers may only use this exemption when their
drivers are actually transporting HM that requires placarding or
includes a select agent or toxin identified in Sec.  172.800(b)(13),
and for which a security plan has been filed under Sec.  172.800-804. A
Notice of Final Determination granting this ATA exemption was published
on August 21, 2015 [80 FR 50912].
    The substance of the exemption is not affected by this extension.
The exemption covers only the 30-minute break requirement [49 CFR
395.3(a)(3)(ii)]. The exemption is restricted to drivers transporting
HM loads requiring placarding under 49 CFR part 172, subpart F, or
select agents and toxins identified in Sec.  172.800(b)(13) that do not
require placarding, and who have filed security plans requiring
constant attendance of HM in accordance with Sec. Sec.  172.800-804. On
each trip, the drivers will be allowed to use 30 minutes or more of
``attendance time'' to meet the requirements for a rest break in the
manner provide in 49 CFR 395.1(q) provided they perform no other on-
duty activities during the rest break.
    The FMCSA does not believe the safety record of any driver
operating under this exemption will deteriorate. However, should
deterioration in safety occur, FMCSA will take all steps necessary to
protect the public interest, including revocation of the exemption. The
FMCSA has the authority to terminate the exemption at any time the
Agency has the data/information to conclude that safety is being
compromised.

    Issued on: November 9, 2016.
T.F. Scott Darling, III,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-28014 Filed 11-21-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P