[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 2, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25904-25910]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10346]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0449; FRL-9346-4]

Acequinocyl; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
acequinocyl in or on multiple commodities which are identified and
discussed later in this document. This regulation additionally removes
several established individual tolerances, as they will be superseded
by inclusion in crop subgroup tolerances or by updated commodity
terminology. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested
these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective May 2, 2012. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before July 2, 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: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0449. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Nollen, 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.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those
engaged in the following activities:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to
provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by
this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in
determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

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-2011-0449 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
July 2, 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 that does not contain any 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 a copy of
your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0449, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerances

    In the Federal Register of July 20, 2011 (76 FR 43231) (FRL-8880-
1), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
1E7864) by IR-4, 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ
08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.599 be amended by
establishing tolerances for residues of the miticide acequinocyl, [2-
(acetyloxy)-3-dodecyl-1,4-naphthalenedione] and its metabolite, 2-
dodecyl-3-hydroxy-1,4-naphthoquinone, expressed as acequinocyl
equivalents, in or on bean, succulent shelled at 0.15 parts per million
(ppm); caneberry subgroup 13-07A at 4.5 ppm; cherry at 0.8 ppm; cowpea,
forage at 9.0 ppm; cucumber at 0.15 ppm; melon subgroup 9A at 0.06 ppm;
soybean, vegetable, succulent at 0.25 ppm; fruit, small vine climbing,
except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F at 1.6 ppm; and berry, low
growing, subgroup 13-07G at 0.4 ppm. The petition additionally
requested that 40 CFR 180.599 be amended by removing the established
tolerances for residues of acequinocyl in or on grape at 1.6 ppm and
strawberry at 0.4 ppm, as they will be superseded by inclusion in
subgroup 13-07F and 13-07G, respectively. That notice referenced a
summary of the petition prepared on behalf of IR-4 by Arysta
LifeScience North America LLC, the registrant, which is available in
the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received
in response to the notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
revised the proposed tolerance levels for several commodities.
Additionally, the Agency has determined that tolerances should be
established on the meat byproducts of livestock commodities and the
previously established tolerances on the liver of livestock commodities
should be removed. The Agency also determined that a tolerance is
necessary on cowpea, hay. Finally, EPA determined that the proposed
tolerance on cherry should be established as two tolerances on sweet
and tart cherry. The reasons for these changes are explained in Unit
IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue * *
*.''
    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors
specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, 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 acequinocyl including
exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action.
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with acequinocyl
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.
    Acequinocyl exhibits low acute toxicity via the oral, dermal and
inhalation routes of exposure, as well as in primary eye and primary
skin irritation studies. It is not a dermal sensitizer. Acequinocyl is
a known Vitamin K antagonist; therefore, it is thought to produce
adverse effects by disrupting the blood coagulation system, as
indicated by increased prothrombin time, increased activated partial
thromboplastin time, and internal hemorrhages.
    In rat studies, including a subchronic oral toxicity study, a 28-
day dermal toxicity study, and a chronic feeding/oncogenicity study,
acequinocyl increased prothrombin and activated partial thromboplastin.
Internal hemorrhages were observed in both a rat and rabbit
developmental toxicity study, a mouse subchronic/chronic toxicity
study, and in a 2-generation reproduction rat study. In a combined
chronic toxicity/oncogenicity study in rats, enlarged eyeballs were
observed. Hepatotoxicity in the mouse was evidenced by histopathology
and increased liver enzymes.
    In both rat and rabbit developmental toxicity studies, acequinocyl
increased the number of resorptions noted. Developmental effects (i.e.,
resorptions) occurred at a dose that was higher than or the same as the
dose that caused maternal toxicity. In the 2-generation

reproduction toxicity study in the rat, there was no evidence of
reproductive toxicity, though there were notable toxic effects observed
in offspring that were not observed in adults including swollen body
parts, protruding eyes, clinical signs, delays in pupil development and
increased mortality occurring mainly after weaning.
    There was no evidence of carcinogenic potential in either the rat
or mouse carcinogenicity studies. There was also no concern for
mutagenic activity as indicated by several mutagenicity studies.
Therefore, acequinocyl is classified as ``not likely to be carcinogenic
to humans.''
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by acequinocyl as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document: ``Acequinocyl; Human-Health Risk
Assessment for Proposed Section 3 Uses on Succulent Soybean Vegetable;
Succulent Shelled Beans; Cowpea Forage; Caneberry Subgroup 13-07A;
Melon Subgroup 9A; Cucumber, Cherry; Low-Growing Berry Subgroup 13-07G;
and Small Fruit Vine Climbing, Except Fuzzy Kiwifruit, Subgroup 13-
07F,'' pp. 31-33 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0449.

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 acequinocyl used for human risk assessment is shown in
the Table of this unit.

   Table--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Acequinocyl for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Point of departure and
         Exposure/scenario              uncertainty/safety   RfD, PAD, LOC for risk    Study and toxicological
                                             factors                assessment                 effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (General population    N/A...................  N/A...................  An endpoint attributable to
 including infants and children).                                                     a single dose was not
                                                                                identified in the
                                                                                database.
Chronic dietary (All populations)..  NOAEL = 2.7 mg/kg/day.  Chronic RfD = 0.027 mg/ Carcinogenicity study in
                                     UFA = 10x.............   kg/day.                 mice (18 month); LOAEL =
                                     UFH = 10x.............  cPAD = 0.027 mg/kg/day   7.0 mg/kg/day based on the
                                     FQPA SF = 1x..........                           clinical chemistry and
                                                                                microscopic non-neoplastic
                                                                                lesions (brown pigmented
                                                                                cells and perivascular
                                                                                inflammatory cells in
                                                                                liver).
Dermal, short-term.................  Dermal study NOAEL =    LOC (occupational/      28-day dermal study in
(1 to 30 days).....................   200 mg/kg/day.          residential) for MOE    rats;
                                                              = 100.                 LOAEL = 1,000 mg/kg/day
                                                                                based on increased
                                                                                clotting factor times.
Inhalation, short-term (1 to 30      Oral NOAEL = 60 mg/kg/  LOC (occupational/      Developmental toxicity
 days).                               day (inhalation         residential) = MOE      study in rabbits; Maternal
                                      absorption rate =       <100.                   LOAEL = 120 mg/kg/day
                                      100%).                                          based on clinical signs
                                     UFA = 10x.............                           (hematuria, reduced fecal
                                     UFH = 10x.............                           output, body weight loss,
                                                                                and reduced food
                                                                                consumption) and gross
                                                                                necropsy findings (pale
                                                                                lungs and liver,
                                                                                hemorrhaging uterus, fluid
                                                                                in the cecum, fur in the
                                                                                stomach, blood stained
                                                                                vaginal opening, blood-
                                                                                stained urinary bladder
                                                                                contents/urine).
                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation)..          Classification: ``Not likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans.''
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members
  of the human population (intraspecies). FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. PAD = population
  adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. MOE = margin of exposure. LOC = level of
  concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to acequinocyl, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing acequinocyl tolerances in 40 CFR
180.599. EPA assessed dietary exposures from acequinocyl 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. No such effects were
identified in the toxicological studies for acequinocyl; therefore, a
quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996
and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals
(CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA utilized tolerance level
residues and 100 percent crop treated (PCT) information for all
registered and proposed uses. The assessment also used Dietary Exposure

Evaluation Model (DEEM-FCIDTM) ver. 7.81 default processing
factors, with the exception of those for grape juice and raisins.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that acequinocyl 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 and PCT information. EPA did not use
anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the dietary assessment
for acequinocyl. Tolerance level residues and 100 PCT were assumed for
all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for acequinocyl in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of acequinocyl. 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
acequinocyl for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are
estimated to be 6.69 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and
0.0036 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 6.69 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Acequinocyl is
currently registered for the following use by commercial applicators
and homeowners that could result in residential exposure: Landscape
ornamentals in residential and public areas. Residential handlers are
expected to complete all tasks associated with the use of acequinocyl
including mixing and loading (if needed), and application of
acequinocyl with either a low-pressure hand wand or with a hose-end
sprayer. EPA assessed potential short-term dermal and inhalation
exposures to residential handlers from these scenarios. Residential
handler exposure scenarios are considered to be short-term only, due to
the infrequent use patterns associated with homeowner products.
Postapplication exposure was not anticipated for the registered
residential uses; therefore, a quantitative postapplication assessment
was not conducted. Further information regarding EPA standard
assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found
at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac/science/trac6a05.pdf.
    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 acequinocyl to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and acequinocyl does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
acequinocyl 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. The acequinocyl toxicity
database is adequate to evaluate potential increased susceptibility of
infants and children, and includes developmental toxicity studies in
rats and rabbits and a 2-generation reproduction study in rats. In the
rat prenatal developmental toxicity study, developmental toxicity was
indicated by increased resorptions and fetal variations. The
developmental toxicity study in rabbits identified an increased number
of complete resorptions. In the rat 2-generation reproductive toxicity
study, both the maternal and reproductive toxicity LOAELs were not
observed; however, the LOAEL for parental males was 58.9/69.2 mg/kg/
day, based on hemorrhagic effects. The offspring systemic LOAEL was
also 58.9 mg/kg/day. Though the offspring LOAEL was similar to that of
parental males, the study noted increased qualitative susceptibility of
pups (swollen body parts, protruding eyes, clinical signs, delays in
pupil development and increased mortality). These effects occurred
mainly after weaning.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for acequinocyl is complete except for
immunotoxicity and acute and subchronic neurotoxicity testing. Recent
changes to 40 CFR part 158 imposed new data requirements for
immunotoxicity testing (OPPTS Guideline 870.7800) and acute and
subchronic neurotoxicity testing (OPPTS Guideline 870.6200) for
pesticide registration. The toxicology database for acequinocyl does
not show any evidence of treatment-related effects on the immune
system, and the overall weight-of-evidence suggests that this chemical
does not directly target the immune system. Therefore, the Agency does
not believe that conducting a functional immunotoxicity study will
result in a lower POD than that currently in use for overall risk
assessment, and additional UFs are not needed to account for a lack of
this study.
    Previously, EPA concluded that exposure to acequinocyl does not
pose a neurotoxicity concern. Acequinocyl is a known Vitamin K
antagonist; neurotoxic compounds of similar structure were not
identified. While there is potential evidence of neurotoxicity or
neuropathology in the 2-generation reproduction study as well as the
rat subchronic oral toxicity study, these toxicities are not considered
to be primary effects because they were observed at very high doses and
in the presence of more severe systemic effects

in both studies. The Agency does not believe that conducting the acute
and subchronic neurotoxicity studies will result in a lower POD than
that currently used for overall risk assessment; therefore, additional
UFs to account for neurotoxicity are not necessary.
    ii. There is no evidence of increased susceptibility of rat or
rabbit fetuses to in utero exposure to acequinocyl. In the 2-generation
reproduction study in rats, increased qualitative susceptibility was
observed in offspring. However, EPA determined that the degree of
concern is low for the noted effects because the effects were observed
at the same doses as parental effects, and there is a clear NOAEL
established which was used in endpoint selection.
    iii. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to acequinocyl in drinking water. Residential uses
are not expected to result in postapplication exposure to infants and
children. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and
risks posed by acequinocyl.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
acequinocyl is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
acequinocyl from food and water will utilize 55% 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
acequinocyl 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). Acequinocyl
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 acequinocyl.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water,
and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 2,500 for the
general U.S. population, and 2,600 for females 13-49 years old. Because
EPA's level of concern for acequinocyl is a MOE of 100 or below, these
MOEs are not of concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level). An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however,
acequinocyl is not registered for any use patterns that would result in
intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term risk is
assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term residential
exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under
the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as
the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no further assessment
of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic
dietary risk assessment for evaluating intermediate-term risk for
acequinocyl.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, acequinocyl 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 acequinocyl residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Morse Methods (Meth-135 and Meth-133, revision
3), two high-performance liquid chromatography methods with
tandem mass-spectroscopy detection (HPLC/MS/MS), are adequate
enforcement methodologies available to enforce the tolerance
expression.
    The methods 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 U.N. Food and
Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards
program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established MRLs for acequinocyl.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    Based on analysis of the residue field trial data supporting the
petitions, EPA revised the proposed tolerances on berry, low growing,
subgroup 13-07G from 0.4 ppm to 0.50 ppm; bean, succulent shelled from
0.15 ppm to 0.30 ppm; cowpea, forage from 9.0 ppm to 6.0 ppm; caneberry
subgroup 13-07A from 4.5 ppm to 4.0 ppm; and melon subgroup 9A from
0.06 ppm to 0.15 ppm. The Agency revised these tolerance levels based
on analysis of the residue field trial data using the Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) tolerance calculation
procedures. EPA also determined that the proposed tolerance on cherry
at 0.8 ppm should be established as two separate tolerances on cherry,
tart at 1.0 ppm; and cherry, sweet at 0.50 ppm because residues were
generally higher in tart cherries than in sweet cherries. EPA
determined

that a tolerance is necessary on cowpea, hay at 18 ppm. Based on the
results of the data supporting the cowpea tolerance, the appropriate
tolerance for residues of acequinocyl in or on cowpea, forage is 6.0
ppm. Typically, forage is harvested before the plant has bloomed.
Because it was not specified at what plant stage the product can be
applied, EPA deemed it necessary to establish a tolerance on cowpea,
hay as well. There is typically a 3-fold drying factor between forage
and hay; therefore, EPA is establishing a tolerance for residues of
acequinocyl in or on cowpea, hay at 18 ppm.
    Finally, because cowpea forage and hay are significant feedstuff
commodities for livestock, the maximum reasonable dietary burdens of
acequinocyl were recalculated for acequinocyl using the Agency's most
recent guidance on constructing reasonably balanced livestock diets.
The Agency determined that the currently established tolerance level of
0.02 ppm for residues of acequinocyl in the fat of cattle, goat, horse,
and sheep are still appropriate. Furthermore, the established 0.02 ppm
tolerance level in the liver of cattle, goat, horse, and sheep is
appropriate. However, EPA is revising the commodity definition to meat
byproducts rather than liver in order to reflect the correct
terminology. Therefore, EPA determined that tolerances should be
established at 0.02 ppm for the meat byproducts of cattle, goat, horse,
and sheep; and the established tolerances in the liver of cattle, goat,
horse, and sheep should be removed.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of acequinocyl,
including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in
the table in paragraph (a) of Sec.  180.599. Compliance with the
tolerance levels specified in the table of paragraph (a) of Sec.
180.599 is to be determined by measuring only the sum of acequinocyl
[2-(acetyloxy)-3-dodecyl-1,4-naphthalenedione] and its metabolite, 2-
dodecyl-3-hydroxy-1,4-naphthoquinone, calculated as the stoichiometric
equivalent of acequinocyl, in or on soybean, vegetable, succulent at
0.25 ppm; berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G at 0.50 ppm; fruit, small
vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F at 1.6 ppm;
bean, succulent shelled at 0.30 ppm; cowpea, forage at 6.0 ppm; cowpea,
hay at 18 ppm; caneberry subgroup 13-07A at 4.0 ppm; melon subgroup 9A
at 0.15 ppm; cucumber at 0.15 ppm; cherry, tart at 1.0 ppm; cherry,
sweet at 0.50; cattle, meat byproducts at 0.02 ppm; goat, meat
byproducts at 0.02 ppm; horse, meat byproducts at 0.02 ppm; and sheep,
meat byproducts at 0.02 ppm. This regulation additionally removes
established tolerances in or on grape at 1.6 ppm; strawberry at 0.40
ppm; cattle, liver at 0.02 ppm; goat, liver at 0.02 ppm; horse, liver
at 0.02 ppm; and sheep, liver at 0.02 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under section 408(d) of
FFDCA 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 section 408(d) of FFDCA, 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 section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. 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) (Pub. L. 104-4).
    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), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. 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 this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule 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: April 20, 2012.
Daniel J. Rosenblatt,
Acting 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. Section 180.599, paragraph (a), the table is amended by removing the
entries for ``Cattle, liver''; ``Goat, liver''; ``Grape''; ``Horse,
liver''; ``Sheep, liver''; and ``Strawberry'' and by alphabetically
adding the following commodities to read as follows:

Sec.  180.599  Acequinocyl; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. * * *

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

                                * * * * *
Bean, succulent shelled......................................       0.30
Berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G..........................       0.50
Caneberry subgroup 13-07A....................................       4.0

                                * * * * *
Cattle, meat byproducts......................................       0.02
Cherry, sweet................................................       0.50
Cherry, tart.................................................       1.0

                                * * * * *
Cowpea, forage...............................................       6.0
Cowpea, hay..................................................      18
Cucumber.....................................................       0.15

                                * * * * *
Fruit, small vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup        1.6
 13-07F......................................................

                                * * * * *
Goat, meat byproducts........................................       0.02

                                * * * * *
Horse, meat byproducts.......................................       0.02
Melon subgroup 9A............................................       0.15

                                * * * * *
Sheep, meat byproducts.......................................       0.02
Soybean, vegetable, succulent................................       0.25

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-10346 Filed 5-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:I am requesting that the comment period be extended for this ruling. The is more information that needs tobe considered before permitting this act.

I was a smoker for 37 years at two packs a day.  Within a month of vaping I was off cigarettes.  I never thought that could happen.  In the past few months I have reduced my nicotine to 6mg and I hope to be at zero in the next week.  This is the only method that has ever worked for me.

The flavor e-liquids were the key.  By vaping something that tasted good, showed me how bad cigarettes tasted.  I am total against the e-liquids that are tobacco flavor.  By getting away from that taste I was able to find out how bad the cigarettes tasted.

Please extend the time period and consider all of the comments that you have received.  This is truely the best method to get people off cigarettes for a healthies nation.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 73 (Tuesday, April 16, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22540-22542]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08827]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2013-0213; FRL-9803-5]

Notice of Public Meeting/Webinar: EPA Method Development Update
on Drinking Water Testing Methods for Contaminant Candidate List
Contaminants

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of
Ground Water and Drinking Water, Standards and Risk Management
Division's Technical Support Center (TSC) announces a public meeting/
webinar to discuss analytical testing procedures for unregulated
contaminants in drinking water that are, or are being considered for
inclusion, on the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL). Technical experts
from TSC and the EPA Office of Research and Development's National
Exposure Research Laboratory Microbiological and Chemical Exposure
Assessment Research Division will describe methods currently in
development for many CCL contaminants, with an expectation that several
of these methods will support future cycles of the Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR) program. The agenda for the public
meeting/webinar

will include time for public comment for those that pre-register to
present information and technical input on analytical testing
procedures.

DATES: The public meeting/webinar will be held on Wednesday, May 15,
2013, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Eastern Time. The meeting/webinar
materials will be available from May 15, 2013, to June 17, 2013 to
accommodate post-meeting comments. Persons wishing to attend the
meeting in-person or on-line via the webinar must register by May 1,
2013, as described in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held in Room 130/138 at the EPA's
Andrew W. Breidenbach Environmental Research Center (AWBERC), 26 West
Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268. All attendees must
show government-issued photo identification to enter the building, sign
in with the security desk and pass through a metal detector. This
meeting will also be simultaneously broadcast as a webinar, available
through the Internet. Persons wishing to attend the meeting in-person
or on-line via the webinar must register by May 1, 2013, by sending an
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Further information about
registration, and participation in the meeting, can be found on the
EPA's Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Program Meetings and Materials
Web page: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/ucmr/calendar.cfm.
    Submit written comments and technical input (described in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section) by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Water Docket, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Mail Code: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: Water Docket, U.S. EPA Docket Center (EPA/
DC). Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours
of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The EPA Docket Center, Water Docket is located in
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004. The
telephone number for the Water Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your information to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2013-0213. EPA's policy is that all information received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information through
www.regulations.gov or email that you consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected. If you have such information, you should contact EPA (as
described in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section) for
instructions on submitting CBI.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any members of the public who wish to
receive further information about the meeting/webinar or have questions
about this notice or submission of comments should contact Glynda
Smith, Technical Support Center, Standards and Risk Management
Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (MS 140),
Environmental Protection Agency, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive,
Cincinnati, OH 45268; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This notice is directed to the public in general; the action does
not impose any requirements. The public meeting/webinar may be of
interest to persons who conduct chemical or microbiological testing for
drinking water contaminants, and in particular those that conduct
testing under the UCMR program.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    This document is available for download at: www.regulations.gov.
For other related information, reference Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2013-
0213.

C. How may I participate in this meeting?

    Persons interested in attending the meeting in-person or on-line
need to register by sending an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by
May 1, 2013. Comments on the meeting/webinar, including technical input
regarding potential drinking water analytical testing procedures for
one or more contaminants that are, or are likely to be considered for
inclusion, on the CCL may be made during the public comment session of
the meeting or in writing to the public docket (see ADDRESSES section).
EPA encourages public input and will allocate time for stakeholder
presentations of candidate analytical testing procedures based on the
number of registrants that sign up to speak and time available in the
meeting. EPA requests that only one person present a statement on
behalf of a group or organization. To be placed on the public speaker
list, send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by May 1, 2013, and
indicate that you will be attending the meeting and would like to
speak.
    Special Accommodations: To request special accommodations for
individuals with disabilities, please contact
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please allow at least five business days
prior to the meeting to allow time to process your request.

D. How can stakeholders identify potential testing procedures for
priority unregulated contaminants?

    The public meeting/webinar will provide opportunities to learn
about EPA's method development work and to provide public comments. In
addition, EPA will be posting the meeting/webinar materials in the
Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2013-2013 from May 15, 2013, to June 17, 2013, to
provide an opportunity for written comments.
    EPA's preferred method for submission of written comments about
testing procedures is through www.regulations.gov [Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OW-2013-0213], though other options are described in the ADDRESSES
section of this notice. EPA requests that the submitters include: name,
affiliation, phone number, mailing address, and email address. However,
this information is not required and comments can be submitted
anonymously. The following information will be specifically presented
in the public meeting/webinar, which commenters should address as
applicable:
    1. Specify the CCL contaminant(s) that can be analyzed with the
drinking water test procedure. Proposed testing procedures should focus
on CCL 3 contaminants (https://federalregister.gov/a/E9-24287) or
contaminants likely to be considered for CCL 4 (nominated contaminants
can be viewed at www.regulations.gov and referencing Docket ID EPA-HQ-
OW-2012-0217). Note that EPA is currently developing the draft CCL 4,
which includes consideration of the contaminants that were nominated.
    2. Specify the sensitivity, accuracy and precision attainable for
the contaminant(s) using the test procedure. Testing procedures
submitted for consideration are expected to be validated prior to use.
Guidelines for test method validation are described by

the EPA Forum on Environmental Measurement (FEM) in documents available
through the FEM Web site (USEPA 2005, USEPA 2009).
    3. To the extent possible, specify the cost, availability, and
projected laboratory capacity associated with the technology that is
being proposed.
    4. Provide complete citations for referenced test methods,
including author(s), title, journal (or other publication), and date.
    5. Provide contact information for the primary investigator, when
available.

II. Background

A. How does EPA identify priority contaminants and collect information
to judge their occurrence in drinking water?

    The 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
established the CCL and UCMR programs to provide information that EPA
needs to determine whether particular drinking water contaminants
should be regulated. The CCL is a list of contaminants that when
published are not subject to any proposed or promulgated national
primary drinking water regulations, are known or anticipated to occur
in public drinking water systems, and may require regulations under
SDWA. While the CCL process identifies contaminants that may require
regulation, the UCMR program provides the framework to collect data to
help determine whether a contaminant occurs at a frequency and
concentration that would be of public health concern. EPA published the
third CCL (CCL 3) containing 116 contaminants on October 8, 2009 (74 FR
51850) and the third UCMR (UCMR 3) on May 2, 2012 (77 FR 26072).
Monitoring under UCMR 3 began January 1, 2013, and will continue until
December 31, 2015.
    On May 8, 2012, EPA published a Federal Register notice (77 FR
27057) requesting nominations of chemical and microbial contaminants
for possible inclusion in the fourth drinking water Contaminant
Candidate List (CCL 4). A summary of the contaminants nominated for
inclusion in CCL 4 can be viewed at www.regulations.gov referencing
Docket ID EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0217.

B. What is the basis for this action?

    Under UCMR, a unique set of up to 30 contaminants is identified
every five years for monitoring. In order to correctly identify and
quantitate these contaminants in a national monitoring effort, robust
testing methods must be available. This public meeting/webinar will
provide a forum to hear about and discuss EPA's current drinking water
method development for priority contaminants--focusing on CCL 3 and
possible CCL 4 contaminants--as well as other testing procedures that
may be applicable to these contaminants.

III. References

USEPA. 2005. Validation and Peer Review of U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Chemical Methods of Analysis, FEM Document Number
2005-01. Available at http://www.epa.gov/fem/agency_methods.htm.
USEPA. 2009. Method Validation of U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Microbiological Methods of Analysis, FEM Document Number
2009-01. Available at http://www.epa.gov/fem/agency_methods.htm.

    Dated: April 8, 2013.
Peter Grevatt,
Director, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.
[FR Doc. 2013-08827 Filed 4-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6550-50-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they saved my life. I wish to provide you with my personal story, I breath better, sleep better with my air way's cleared, i walk many flight's of stairs a day and since i quit smoking i no longer take breaks to catch my breath  as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28871-28872]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11804]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER12-1751-000]

Renewable Power Strategies, 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
Renewable Power Strategies, 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 May 30, 2012.
    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 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: May 10, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-11804 Filed 5-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on February 1, 2006

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2001-10006

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  JETPORT INC.					                     Date Filed:  November
22, 2005

Relief requested:  Renewal of exemption from 49 USC § 41301 to permit
the applicant to conduct, using small equipment, passenger and cargo
charter operations between: 1) Canada and the United States; 2) third
countries and the United States, via Canada, that make a stopover in
Canada for at least two consecutive nights; and 3) other charters
to/from the United States in accordance with 14 CFR Part 212.

Date and citation of last action:  December 16, 2004, in this Docket.

Applicant representative:  Roger Adair,<PHONE_NUMBER>                 DOT
analyst:  Robert J. Finamore,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None.

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved.								Action date:  February 1, 2006

Effective dates of authority granted:  February 1, 2006, through
February 1, 2007.

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  United
States-Canada Air Transport Agreement.

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations of our standard exemption conditions
(attached).

Special conditions/Remarks:  In the conduct of these operations, the
carrier must adhere to all applicable provisions of the U.S.-Canada
Agreement, and may only use aircraft designed to have a maximum
passenger capacity of not more than 60 seats or a maximum payload
capacity of not more than 18,000 pounds.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director, Office of International
Aviation

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed
operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

FOREIGN CARRIER EXEMPTION CONDITIONS
                              ATTACHMENT

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the foreign carrier
applicant(s) shall:

1) Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

2) Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and
36, and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning
security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1546 or 1550, as
applicable.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing
any new service (including charter flights) from a foreign airport that
would be the holder’s last point of departure for the United States,
contact its International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise
the IPSI of its plans and to find out whether the Transportation
Security Administration has determined that security is adequate to
allow such airport(s) to be served;

3) Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage contained
in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any operations
under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the form of a
completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation Administration’s
Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards Service (any
changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be filed with that
office);

4) Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

5) Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

6) Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 203,
concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

7) Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are: a) based on its
operations in international air transportation that, according to the
contract of carriage, include a point in the United States as a point of
origin, point of destination, or agreed stopping place, or for which the
contract of carriage was purchased in the United States; or b) based on
a claim under any international agreement or treaty cognizable in any
court or other tribunal of the United States.  In this condition, the
term “international air transportation” means “international
transportation” as defined by the Warsaw Convention, except that all
States shall be considered to be High Contracting Parties for the
purpose of this definition;

8) Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

9) Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department’s
rules governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

11) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and limitations
required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the Department,
with all applicable orders or regulations of other U.S. agencies and
courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States.

This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder
is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above.  Moreover, this
authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit
Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code.

 05/2004


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 25, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 8362]
[FR Doc No: 2017-00903]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2016-1060]

Special Local Regulation; Southern California Annual Marine
Events for the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone--Hanohano Ocean
Challenge

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the Hanohano Ocean Challenge
special local regulations on the waters of Mission Bay, California on
January 28, 2017. These special local regulations are necessary to
provide for the safety of the participants, crew, spectators, sponsor
vessels, and general users of the waterway. During the enforcement
period, persons and vessels are prohibited from anchoring, blocking,
loitering, or impeding within this regulated area unless authorized by
the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 100.1101 will be enforced from 7:00
a.m. through 2:00 p.m. on January 28, 2017 for Item 16 in Table 1 of
Section 100.1101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
publication of enforcement, call or email Lieutenant Robert Cole,
Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA; telephone
(619) 278-7656, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the special
local regulations in 33 CFR 100.1101 for the Hanohano Ocean Challenge
in Mission Bay, CA in 33 CFR 100.1101, Table 1, Item 16 of that section
from 7:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. on January 28, 2017. This enforcement
action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable
waterways during the event. The Coast Guard's regulation for recurring
marine events in the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone identifies the
regulated entities and area for this event. Under the provisions of 33
CFR 100.1101, persons and vessels are prohibited from anchoring,
blocking, loitering, or impeding within this regulated area, unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated
representative. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal,
State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.
    This document is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 33
CFR 100.1101. In addition to this document in the Federal Register, the
Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance
notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to
Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and local advertising by the
event sponsor.
    If the Captain of the Port Sector San Diego or his designated
representative determines that the regulated area need not be enforced
for the full duration stated on this document, he or she may use a
Broadcast Notice to Mariners or other communications coordinated with
the event sponsor to grant general permission to enter the regulated
area.

    Dated: December 15, 2016.
J.R. Buzzella,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2017-00903 Filed 1-24-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


           UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

                                            January 17, 2012

                                                              	OFFICE OF
                                                              	SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
                                                              	RESPONSE

Mr. Tim Pohle
Managing Director U.S. Environmental Affairs & Assistant General Counsel
Airlines for America
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20004-1707

Dear Mr. Pohle:

	Thank you for your letter of January 5, 2012, to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requesting a 60-day extension to the public comment period for the proposed changes to the Underground Storage Tank (UST) regulations published November 18, 2011 in the Federal Register.

	At this time, EPA has decided not to extend the comment period for several reasons. EPA started this rulemaking in 2008 by reaching out to stakeholders to ask for their suggestions on changes to make to the existing UST regulations.  We met with many stakeholder groups from 2008 through 2011, including your organization in February 2011.  We feel that the public was well aware that this rulemaking was coming and, through the stakeholder process, had input into what those changes would be.  In addition, we intentionally made the comment period 90 days rather than the standard 60 days, in order to provide the public with additional time to review the proposal and submit their comments.

	Thank you for your interest in the proposed changes to the UST regulations.  Please note the deadline for submitting comments is February 16, 2012.  If you have additional questions or would like to meet before the end of the comment period, please contact Elizabeth McDermott of my staff at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

                              Sincerely,

                              Carolyn Hoskinson, Director
                              Office of Underground Storage Tanks


                                        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                               DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                                        OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

                                                 WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on December 15, 2005

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN

DOCKET OST-2005-22620

________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Docket OST-2005-22620:  Application of Delta Air Lines, Inc. (Delta)
filed 9/29/05, and supplemented 10/3/05, and 10/17/05, for:

XX  Exemption for two years under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the
following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between Boston, Massachusetts, and Cancun, Mexico; Los Angeles,
California, and Puerto Vallarta, Mexico; Los Angeles, California, and
San Jose del Cabo, Mexico; Los Angeles, California, and
Ixtapa/Zihuatanejo, Mexico; and Washington, D.C., and Cancun, Mexico,
and to integrate this authority with Delta’s existing exemption and
certificate authority, consistent with applicable international
agreements.  Delta states that it will provide year-round service in
each of the subject markets.

Applicant rep:  Robert E. Cohn<PHONE_NUMBER>   DOT Analyst:  Linda
Lundell<PHONE_NUMBER>

DISPOSITION

XX  Granted exemption authority to Delta to serve the Boston-Cancun,
Washington, D.C.-Cancun, and

           	 Los Angeles-Ixtapa/Zihuatanejo markets, including
corresponding route integration authority

            	(subject to conditions and remarks, see below)

XX   Deferred on Delta’s request for exemption authority to serve the
Los Angeles-Puerto Vallarta and Los

            	Angeles-San Jose del Cabo markets, including corresponding
route integration authority (see remarks, below)

XX  Deferred on Delta’s request for certificate authority to serve the
Atlanta-Acapulco, Atlanta-Ixtapa/Zihuatanejo,

            	Boston-Cancun, Washington, D.C.-Cancun, Los Angeles-Puerto
Vallarta, Los Angeles-San Jose del Cabo, 	and Los
Angeles-Ixtapa/Zihuatanejo markets (see remarks, below)

The above action granting exemption authority and route integration to
Delta for Boston-Cancun, Washington, D.C.-Cancun, and Los
Angeles-Ixtapa/Zihuatanejo services was effective when taken: December
15, 2005, through

December 15, 2007.

The above action deferring on Delta’s request for exemption authority
to serve the Los Angeles-Puerto Vallarta and Los Angeles-San Jose del
Cabo markets, and for corresponding route integration authority, was
effective when taken: December 15, 2005.

The above action deferring on Delta’s certificate requests was
effective when taken: December 15, 2005.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		    Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement
between the United States and Mexico.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

XX Holder’s certificates of public convenience and necessity

XX  Standard exemption conditions (attached)

Conditions:  The U.S.-Mexico exemption authority granted is subject to
the dormancy notice requirements set forth in condition 7 of Appendix A
of Order 88-10-2.  Consistent with our standard policy, the dormancy
notice period for the new exemption authority granted will begin on
Delta’s proposed start-up dates for the subject services, as follows:
June 1, 2006, for the Boston-Cancun and Washington, D.C.-Cancun markets;
and March 18, 2006, for the Los Angeles-Ixtapa/Zihuatanejo market.

The route integration authority granted to Delta is subject to the
condition that any service provided under this exemption shall be
consistent with all applicable agreements between the United States and
the foreign countries involved.  Furthermore, (a) nothing in the award
of the route integration authority granted should be construed as
conferring upon Delta rights (including fifth-freedom intermediate
and/or beyond rights) to serve markets where U.S. carrier entry is
limited unless Delta notifies the Department of its intent to serve such
a market and unless and until the Department has completed any necessary
carrier selection procedures to determine which carrier(s) should be
authorized to exercise such rights; and (b) should there be a request by
any such carrier to use the limited-entry route rights that are included
in Delta’s authority by virtue of the route integration authority
granted here, but that are not then being used by Delta, the holding of
such authority by route integration will not be considered as providing
any preference for Delta in a competitive carrier selection proceeding
to determine which carrier(s) should be entitled to use the authority at
issue.

Responsive Pleadings/Remarks:  At the time the captioned application was
filed, the operative U.S.-Mexico aviation agreement provided that the
United States could designate only two U.S. carriers to provide
scheduled combination services in the Boston-Cancun, Los Angeles-Puerto
Vallarta, Los Angeles-San Jose del Cabo, Los Angeles-Ixtapa/Zihuatanejo,
and Washington, D.C.-Cancun markets.

With respect to Delta’s Los Angeles-Puerto Vallarta and Los
Angeles-San Jose del Cabo requests, two U.S. carriers were already
authorized and designated to serve each of these city-pair markets at
the time of filing.  Thus, no designation opportunities were available
for those markets at that time.  United Air Lines, Inc. (United), filed
a competing application for the Los Angeles-Puerto Vallarta authority in
Docket OST-2005-22767.  Both the present Delta application (for Los
Angeles-Puerto Vallarta authority) and United’s application in Docket
OST-2005-22767 (for Los Angeles-Puerto Vallarta authority) remain
pending.  Competing applications for the Los Angeles-San Jose del Cabo
authority have been filed by Frontier Airlines, Inc. (Frontier),
ExpressJet Airlines, Inc. (ExpressJet), America West Airlines, Inc.
(America West), and United (see Dockets OST-2005-22590, OST-2005-22766,
OST-2005-22769 and OST-2005-22767, respectively).  All of the Los
Angeles-San Jose del Cabo applications remain pending, including
Delta’s present application for Los Angeles-San Jose del Cabo
authority.

With respect to Delta’s Boston-Cancun and Los
Angeles-Ixtapa/Zihuatanejo requests, two U.S. carriers were already
authorized and designated to serve these city-pair markets at the time
of filing.  Thus, no designation opportunities were available for those
markets at that time.  No other carrier has filed for Boston-Cancun or
Los Angeles-Ixtapa/Zihuatanejo exemption authority, and no party has
opposed that portion of Delta’s application here.

With respect to Delta’s Washington, D.C.-Cancun request, two U.S.
carriers were already authorized and designated to serve this city-pair
market at the time of filing.  Thus, no designation opportunities were
available for services on the route at that time.  Delta’s application
for Washington, D.C.-Cancun authority competed with the pending
applications of USA 3000 for authority to serve Cancun from Washington,
D.C. (see Docket OST-2002-13527) and of US Airways for authority to
serve Cancun from Baltimore (see Docket OST-2002-13855).

On September 21, 2005, the United States and Mexico reached an ad
referendum agreement on certain amendments to the U.S.-Mexico aviation
agreement, providing for the expansion of services between the two
countries for both combination and all-cargo air transportation
services, including combination services in the Los Angeles-Puerto
Vallarta, Los Angeles-San Jose del Cabo, Boston-Cancun, Los
Angeles-Ixtapa/Zihuatanejo, and Washington, D.C.-Cancun markets.  We are
now in a position to award authority pursuant to these amendments.

One route opportunity is now available for the Los Angeles-Puerto
Vallarta and Los Angeles-San Jose del Cabo markets.  However, because
both Delta (in the present docket), and United (in Docket
OST-2005-22620) have filed applications for this authority, we will
consider those competing requests subsequently.

One route opportunity is now available for Boston-Cancun and Los
Angeles-Ixtapa/Zihuatanejo services.  Because Delta, in the instant
application, is the only applicant requesting authority to serve the
Boston-Cancun and Los Angeles-Ixtapa/Zihuatanejo markets, we will now
grant Delta’s exemption request to serve those markets.

Pursuant to the amendments to the agreement, Washington, D.C., and
Baltimore, Maryland, are now regarded as separate points for designation
purposes.  Up to three U.S. carriers may now be designated to serve the
Washington, D.C.-Cancun market, and up to three U.S. carriers may now be
designated to serve the Baltimore-Cancun market.  In light of these
amendments, two route opportunities are now available for Washington,
D.C.-Cancun services.  With regard to the Washington, D.C.-Cancun
market, US Airways no longer wishes to prosecute its Washington,
D.C.-Cancun request in Docket OST-2002-13855, thus leaving two
applicants (Delta in the instant application and USA 3000 in docket
OST-2002-13527) as the only applicants requesting authority to serve
that market.  Under these circumstances, we will now grant Delta’s
exemption request to serve the Washington, D.C.-Cancun market.

Also under the amended agreement, one additional route opportunity is
now available for Los Angeles-Puerto Vallarta and one for Los
Angeles-San Jose del Cabo services.  However, the requests to serve
these markets exceed the number of designations available under the
amended agreement.  Thus, we will handle these requests in the context
of a comparative selection proceeding to be instituted soon.
Accordingly, we defer on Delta’s request for authority to serve the
Los Angeles-Puerto Vallarta and Los Angeles-San Jose del Cabo markets.

We will handle, subsequently, the request of Delta for certificate
authority for the Atlanta-Acapulco, Atlanta-Ixtapa/Zihuatanejo,
Boston-Cancun, Washington, D.C.-Cancun, Los Angeles-Puerto Vallarta, Los
Angeles-San Jose del Cabo, and Los Angeles-Ixtapa/Zihuatanejo markets.

________________________________________________________________________
___________________________

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department's regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the exemption services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted or deferred, we denied all requests in the
referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

			APPENDIX

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1544.
To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing any new service
(including charter flights) to or from a foreign airport, contact its
International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise the IPSI of
its plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security
Administration has determined that security is adequate to allow such
airport(s) to be served; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

05/2004

   On October 3, 2005, Delta supplemented its application to add an
additional route to its request for authority.  On October 17, 2005,
Delta further supplemented its application to confirm, among other
things, its proposed start-up dates in the subject markets.  By letter
dated November 22, 2005, Delta modified certain of its earlier-proposed
start-up dates for its Cancun services, as a result of the damage
caused by Hurricane Wilma to Cancun.

   By Notice of Action Taken dated December 9, 2005, we granted
Delta’s requests, in the instant application, for exemption authority
and route integration to serve the Atlanta-Acapulco and
Atlanta-Ixtapa/Zihuatanejo markets.  We deferred on Delta’s request
for exemption authority to serve the Boston-Cancun, Los Angeles-Puerto
Vallarta, Los Angeles-San Jose del Cabo, Los Angeles-Ixtapa/Zihuatanejo,
and Washington, D.C.-Cancun markets.  We also deferred on Delta’s
request for certificate authority to serve the Atlanta-Acapulco,
Atlanta-Ixtapa/Zihuatanejo, Boston-Cancun, Washington, D.C.-Cancun, Los
Angeles-Puerto Vallarta, Los Angeles-San Jose del Cabo, and Los
Angeles-Ixtapa/Zihuatanejo markets.  This Notice of Action Taken
addresses the still-pending portion of the applicant’s request.

   Delta requests that its exemption authority for these markets be
awarded under the Department’s streamlined licensing procedures.  To
the extent that Delta is seeking certificate authority for these
markets, we will handle that request subsequently.

   Alaska Airlines, Inc. (Alaska), and Mesa Airlines, Inc. (Mesa), are
authorized and designated to serve the Los Angeles-Puerto Vallarta
market.  American Airlines, Inc. (American), and Alaska are authorized
and designated to serve the Los Angeles-San Jose del Cabo market.

   American and US Airways, Inc. (US Airways) are authorized and
designated to serve the Boston-Cancun market.  Alaska and United are
authorized and designated to serve the Los Angeles-Ixtapa/Zihuatanejo
market.

   At the time Delta’s application was filed, the then-operative
aviation agreement provided that, for designation purposes, only two
U.S. carriers could be designated to provide combination services on the
Washington, D.C./Baltimore-Cancun route.  (Washington/Baltimore was
considered one U.S. point).  United was authorized and designated to
serve Cancun from Washington, D.C., and Brendan Airways LLC, d/b/a USA
3000 (USA 3000) was authorized and designated to serve Cancun from
Baltimore.

   In its original application in Docket OST-2004-13855, US Airways had
also requested authority to serve Cancun from Washington, D.C.  On
October 27, 2005, US Airways filed a supplement to its application in
Docket OST-2004-13855, stating that it wishes to prosecute its
application for authority to serve Cancun from Baltimore only.

   The United States and Mexico signed the agreement in Mexico City on
December 12, 2005.

    We are granting concurrently US Airways’ application, in Docket
OST-2004-13855, for Baltimore-Cancun authority, and USA 3000’s
application, in Docket OST-2004-13527, for Washington, D.C.-Cancun
authority.

 PAGE

 PAGE   4