[Federal Register: November 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 226)]
[Notices]
[Page 71680]
[DOCID:fr24no10-73]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2232-585]

 Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; Notice of Application for Amendment
of License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

November 17, 2010.
    Take notice that the following application has been filed with the
Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Non-Project Use of Project Lands and Waters.
    b. Project No.: 2232-585.
    c. Date Filed: October 6, 2010.
    d. Applicant: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on Lake Norman in Mecklenburg
County, North Carolina.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Kelvin K. Reagan, Manager, Lake Services,
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, P.O. Box 1006, Charlotte, NC 28201-1006,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: John Mark:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for Filing Comments and/or Motions: December 17, 2010.
    All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See, 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. If unable to be
filed electronically, documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an
original and seven copies should be mailed to: Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426. 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
address and contact information at the end of your comments.
    k. Description of Request: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC requests
Commission approval to lease 0.448 acre of land within the project
boundary to Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. Under the lease, the
county would be permitted to install a floating dock that will be a
part of the North Carolina Community Sailing & Rowing (NCCSR) Center
located at Blythe Landing County Park in Cornelius, North Carolina.
NCCSR will offer public sailing and rowing programs, and the proposed
docking facility is designed to accommodate the specialized needs of
the sailing and rowing programs.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online at https//www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to
be notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676, or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included in the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filings and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1)
Bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR
4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate
to project works which are the subject of the amendment application.
Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the
applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served
upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular
application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other
filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof
of service on all persons listed in reference to this application and
must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the
service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in
accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-29573 Filed 11-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 81)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 24831-24834]
[DOCID:fr27ap06-14]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0279; FRL-8162-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; VOC and NOX RACT Determinations for Eight Individual
Sources

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve revisions to the Pennsylvania State
Implementation Plan (SIP). The revisions were submitted by the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) to
establish and require reasonably available control technology (RACT)
for eight major sources of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and
nitrogen oxides (NOX) pursuant to the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania's (Pennsylvania or the Commonwealth) SIP-approved generic
RACT regulations. EPA is proposing to approve these revisions in
accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 30, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2006-0279 by one of the following methods:
    A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    B. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0279, Makeba Morris, Chief, Air Quality
Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2006-0279. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at http://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 that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site

is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov
 or in hard copy during normal business hours at the

Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the
State submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality, P.O. Box 8468, 400
Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Wentworth,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 1, 1995, March 21, 1996, October
18, 1996, April 20, 1998, October 2, 1998, June 22, 1999, and February
4, 2003, PADEP submitted revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP. These SIP
revisions consist of source-specific operating permits issued by PADEP
to establish and require RACT for eight individual sources pursuant to
Pennsylvania's SIP-approved generic RACT regulations.

I. Background

    Pursuant to sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f) of the CAA, Pennsylvania
is required to establish and implement RACT for all major VOC and
NOX sources. The major source size is determined by its
location, the classification of that area and whether it is located in
the ozone transport region (OTR). Under section 184 of the CAA, RACT as
specified in sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f) applies throughout the OTR.
The entire Commonwealth is located within the OTR. Therefore, RACT is
applicable statewide in Pennsylvania.
    State implementation plan revisions imposing RACT for three classes
of VOC sources are required under section 182(b)(2). The categories
are:
    (1) All sources covered by a Control Technique Guideline (CTG)
document issued between November 15, 1990 and the date of attainment;
    (2) All sources covered by a CTG issued prior to November 15, 1990;
and
    (3) All major non-CTG sources.
    The Pennsylvania SIP already has approved RACT regulations and
requirements for all sources and source categories covered by the CTGs.
The Pennsylvania SIP also has approved regulations to require major
sources of NOX and additional major sources of VOC emissions
(not covered by a CTG) to implement RACT. These regulations are
commonly termed the ``generic RACT regulations.'' A generic RACT
regulation is one that does not, itself, specifically define RACT for a
source or source categories but instead establishes procedures for
imposing case-by-case RACT determinations. The Commonwealth's SIP-
approved generic RACT regulations consist of the procedures PADEP uses
to establish and impose RACT for subject sources of VOC and
NOX.
    Pursuant to the SIP-approved generic RACT rules, PADEP imposes RACT
on each subject source in an enforceable document, usually a Plan
Approval (PA), Consent Order (CO), or Operating Permit (OP). The
Commonwealth then submits these PAs, COs, or OPs to EPA for approval as
source-specific SIP revisions. EPA reviews these SIP revisions to
ensure that the PADEP has determined and imposed RACT in accordance
with the provisions of the SIP-approved generic RACT rules.
    It must be noted that the Commonwealth has adopted and is
implementing additional ``post RACT requirements'' to reduce seasonal
NOX emissions in the form of a NOX cap and trade
regulation, 25 Pa Code Chapters 121 and 123, based upon a model rule
developed by the States in the OTR. That regulation was approved as a
SIP revision on June 6, 2000 (65 FR 35842). Pennsylvania has also
adopted 25 Pa Code Chapter 145 to satisfy Phase I of the NOX
SIP call. That regulation was approved as a SIP revision on August 21,
2001 (66 FR 43795). Federal approval of a source-specific RACT
determination for a major source of NOX in no way relieves
that source from any applicable requirements found in 25 PA Code
Chapters 121, 123 and 145.

II. Summary of the SIP Revisions

    The following table identifies the sources and the individual
operating permits (OPs) which are the subject of this rulemaking.

                      Pennsylvania--VOC and NOX RACT Determinations for Individual Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Operating Permit                        ``Major Source''
         Source's name                 County         (OP )      Source type            pollutant
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pennsylvania Power & Light       Cumberland........        OP-21-2009  Combustion         VOC and NOX.
 Company--West Shore.                                                   Turbines.
Foster Wheeler Mt. Carmel, Inc.  Northumberland....        OP-49-0002  Cogeneration       NOX.
                                                                        Facility.
Metropolitan Edison Company--    Northampton.......        OP-48-0006  Combustion         NOX.
 Portland.                                                              Turbines and
                                                                        Boilers.
Pennsylvania Power & Light       Lycoming..........        OP-41-0004  Combustion         NOX.
 Company.                                                               Turbine.

Pennsylvania Power & Light       Clinton...........        OP-18-0006  Combustion         NOX.
 Company.                                                               Turbines.
Texas Eastern Transmission       Juniata County....        OP-34-2002  Compressor         NOX.
 Corporation.                                                           Station.
Pennsylvania Power & Light       Northampton.......        OP 48-0011  Combustion         VOC and NOX.
 Company.                                                               Turbines and
                                                                        Diesel
                                                                        Generators.
Johnstown Corporation..........  Cambria...........     OP-11-000-034  Steel Foundry....  VOC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested parties are advised that copies of Pennsylvania's SIP
submittals for these sources, including the actual OPs imposing RACT,
PADEP's evaluation memoranda, and the sources' RACT proposals
(referenced in PADEP's evaluation memoranda) are included and may be
viewed in their entirety in both the electronic and hard copy versions
of the docket for this final rule. As previously stated, all documents
in the electronic docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov

index. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during

normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are
available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection,
Bureau of Air Quality, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania 17105.
    EPA is approving these RACT SIP submittals because PADEP
established and imposed these RACT requirements in accordance with the
criteria set forth in its SIP-approved generic RACT regulations
applicable to these sources. In accordance with its SIP-approved
generic RACT rule, the Commonwealth has also imposed recordkeeping,
monitoring, and testing requirements on these sources sufficient to
determine compliance with the applicable RACT determinations.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is approving the revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP submitted by
PADEP on August 1, 1995, March 21, 1996, October 18, 1996, April 20,
1998, October 2, 1998, June 22, 1999, and February 4, 2003 to establish
and require VOC and NOX RACT for eight individual sources
pursuant to the Commonwealth's SIP-approved generic RACT regulations.
EPA is soliciting public comments on this proposed rule to approve
these source-specific RACT determinations established and imposed by
PADEP in accordance with the criteria set forth in its SIP-approved
generic RACT regulations applicable to these sources. These comments
will be considered before taking final action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)).
This action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-
existing requirements under state law and does not impose any
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does
not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect
small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This proposed rule also does not have a
substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it
merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This
proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3
of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing
this proposed rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate
drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and
provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied
with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining
the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney
General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and
Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the executive order.
    This proposed rule to approve eight source-specific RACT
determinations established and imposed by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania pursuant to its SIP-approved generic RACT regulations does
not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: April 19, 2006.
William Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
 [FR Doc. E6-6366 Filed 4-26-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


1 PART A OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT 1. Identification of the Information Collection ( a) Title and Number of Information Collection.

" National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Consumer Products." The Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) tracking number for this information collection request ( ICR) is 1764.03. This is a renewal of a continuing ICR, OMB No. 2060 0348, expiration date September 30, 2003.

( b) Short Characterization.

( i) Type of collection.

The information collection includes initial reports and periodic recordkeeping necessary for the EPA to ensure compliance with the federal standards for consumer products. Respondents are manufacturers and importers of consumer products.

The Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) approved the previous ICR 1764.02 with the following terms of clearance: " Before resubmission of this ICR for extension, the Agency should confirm estimates of the number of affected sources, taking into account Agency experience with these reporting requirements." The EPA has consulted with the affected industry to obtain information on the current universe of affected sources and to confirm that the burden estimates are reasonable and has determined that the estimated number of respondents is correct.

( ii) Content of reports.

All manufacturers and importers of consumer products subject to this rule must submit an initial report by the compliance date of the rule. The " Initial Notification Report" must include ( 1) company name; ( 2) list of affected product categories; ( 3) location of corporate headquarters; ( 4) location where formulation and batch records are maintained; ( 5) description of any date codes used on product labeling; and ( 6) name, title, and signature of the certifying company official.

Respondents have no periodic reporting requirements. Another reporting requirement, in addition to the initial report, is to provide an updated description of any date codes that may have been revised subsequent to submittal of the initial report.

Respondents seeking a variance must submit an application which provides information to EPA necessary in determining whether to grant the variance. The application would include the specific grounds on which the variance is sought, proposed date by which the requirements of the rule will be met, and a plan for achieving compliance. 2 Supporting documentation is required of companies who wish to market a product subject to the " innovative products" provisions of the rule. This documentation includes information on VOC emissions from the use of the product as compared to emissions from a product formulated in compliance with the table of standards.

The rule requires that the labels of all subject consumer products display the date of manufacture. However, there should be no additional burden imposed due to this labeling requirement because manufacturers routinely date code their products. The date can be in coded form. All manufacturers and importers of subject products must submit an explanation of all date codes used. Date code explanations must be submitted with the initial report. Thereafter, respondents must submit explanations of any new date code within 30 days of its first use.

( iii) Recordkeeping requirements.

All manufacturers and importers of subject consumer products are required to maintain records of formulations and actual batch records for all consumer products covered by the rule. If requested by EPA, the manufacturer or importer must demonstrate to EPA's satisfaction that actual product content adheres to the formulation( s) on record.

All information is routinely kept by companies and consists of formulation data and information on ingredients used in each batch. There are no testing or calculations required to create this data, except for one time emission testing of charcoal lighter materials formulations.

All records required under the rule must be retained for 3 years.

2. Need for and Use of the Collection ( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection.

The EPA is required under Section 183( e) of the Clean Air Act ( Act) to regulate VOC emissions from the use of consumer and commercial products. Pursuant to Section 183( e)( 3), the EPA published a list of consumer and commercial products and a schedule for their regulation on March 23, 1995 ( 60 FR 15264). Consumer products were included in Group I of the list, and standards were promulgated on September 11, 1998. In the Administrator's judgment, VOC emissions from the use of consumer products contribute to ground level ozone formation in ozone nonattainment areas.

The reports and recordkeeping activities required under the rule enable the EPA to determine whether or not consumer products manufactured or imported for use in the U. S. meet the VOC content limits. Minimal reporting is required. Initial reporting consists of information needed by EPA to ( 1) identify the universe of manufacturers and importers subject to the rule; ( 2) determine the date of manufacture of products; ( 3) ascertain the location of formulation and batch records for purposes of compliance assurance; and ( 4) have on record a responsible company official as a primary contact. Notification of the use of revised date codes enable EPA to have access to the most current codes. 3 Respondents seeking a variance are required to submit an application which includes the grounds upon which the variance is being sought, the proposed date for coming into compliance, and a plan for achieving compliance.

Companies desiring to market a product under the " innovative products" provisions are required to submit documentation of the VOC emissions from the use of the product as compared to emissions from a product formulated in compliance with the table of standards.

Recordkeeping, consisting of maintenance of formulation data and batch records, enable EPA to determine whether a product offered for sale was, in fact, manufactured with a VOC content in compliance with the limits. There are no required testing or calculations except for one time emission testing of charcoal lighter fluid formulations.

( b) Use/ Users of the Information.

Agency enforcement personnel will use the information collected to ( 1) identify manufacturers and importers subject to the rule; and ( 2) ensure that consumer products comply with the VOC content standards. These activities are essential to compliance assurance.

3. Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria ( a) Nonduplication.

The information collected pursuant to the regulation consists primarily of the VOC content for specific categories of consumer products. Several States regulate consumer products and require certain recordkeeping and reporting activities. The rule includes requirements consistent with State rules to the extent practical in order to minimize the cumulative burden to the industry.

( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB On June 5, 2003, EPA published a notice in the Federal Register ( 68 FR 33688) entitled, Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Consumer Products. The purpose of the notice was to announce that EPA was planning to submit this continuing ICR to OMB for review and approval, and to solicit comments on the proposed continued collection. No comments were received.

( c) Consultations Significant input and information was received from the affected industry, State and local governments, and environmental groups during development of the rule. In addition, in preparing to submit this ICR to OMB for renewal, EPA contacted parties within the affected industry to obtain information on the universe of affected sources and feedback on accuracy of the burden estimates. 4 TABLE 1 CONSULTATIONS Douglas Fratz Consumer Specialty Products Association Joyce Graf The Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association Douglas Raymond Sherwin Williams Company F. H. Brewer S. C. Johnson & Son Eileen Moyer Reckitt Benckiser ( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection.

This ICR includes one time initial reports by all manufacturers and importers of subject consumer products. Periodic reporting is not required. Consequently, less frequent reporting is not an issue.

Formulation and batch records are required to be kept on a per product basis. This information is normally maintained by consumer product manufacturers. Because there is no analytical test method for determining the VOC content of consumer products, maintaining records of each batch is essential for compliance assurance. Accordingly, lesser degrees of recordkeeping would make compliance determination difficult if not impossible.

( e) General Guidelines.

This ICR adheres to the guidelines for Federal data requesters, as provided at 5 CFR 1320.6. The regulation requires that records be maintained for 3 years. This period of record retention is consistent with other ongoing similar programs and allows enough record history for inspectors to adequately monitor compliance.

( f) Confidentiality.

All information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 2, Subpart B Confidentiality of Business Information ( see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36092, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 39999, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 28, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

( g) Sensitive Questions.

This section is not applicable because this ICR does not involve matters of a sensitive nature. 5 4. The Respondents and the Information Requested ( a) Respondents/ SIC and NAICS Codes.

Respondents to this information collection are manufacturers and importers of consumer products. Manufacturers of consumer products fall within standard industrial classification ( SIC) 284, including " Soap, Detergents, Cleaning Preparations" and " Perfumes, Cosmetics, and Other Toilet Preparations;" SIC 287, " Agricultural Chemicals;" and SIC 289, " Miscellaneous Chemical Products." The appropriate North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) codes are 3256, " Soap, Cleaning Compounds, and Toilet Preparations;" and 3259, " Other Chemical Products and Preparations."

( b) Information Requested.

( i) Data items.

Table 2, Source Data and Information Requirements, summarizes the recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

TABLE 2 SOURCE DATA AND INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS Recordkeeping ° Records of formulations in use 59.209( a) ° Records of composition of each batch of production 59.209( a) ° Records of charcoal lighter materials testing 59.209( c)

Reporting ° Initial report 59.209( d) ° Report of change of date coding system 59.209( e) ° Application for variance 59.206( a) ° Documentation of " innovative products" 59.204( d)

( ii) Respondent Activities.

The respondent activities required for all manufacturers and importers of regulated products are listed in Table 3. 6 5. The Information Collected Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management.

( a) Agency Activities.

A list of activities required of the EPA is provided in Table 4.

( b) Collection Methodology and Management The information collected under this rule will be maintained in a computerized database. As noted in section 2( b) of this ICR, the information collected is a necessary part of compliance determination.

( c) Small Entity Flexibility.

Under the rule, there are no specific provisions for small entity flexibility. However, companies subject to the rule can apply for variances in cases where the company, because of extraordinary reasons beyond reasonable control, cannot comply with the rule. While all variance applications will receive close scrutiny, EPA will give full consideration to the special needs of small manufacturers and importers.

( d) Collection Schedule.

By December 10, 1998 [ December 10, 1999 for consumer products that are also regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA)], or within 30 days of becoming subject to the rule, manufacturers and importers of regulated products must submit to EPA an Initial Notification Report. The content of this report is outlined in section 1( b)( ii) of this ICR.

6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection Because this is a renewal of an existing ICR, these estimates represent the average annual burden that will be incurred by the affected industry during the 3 year period beginning in October 2003. Consequently, the requirement for each regulated entity to submit an initial notification report during the first year the rule was effective will have already been met and is not considered here.

( a) Estimating Respondent Burden.

The average annual burden estimates for reporting and recordkeeping requirements for all manufacturers and importers of subject products are presented in Table 3. These numbers were derived from estimates based on the EPA's experience with other standards, and from information obtained from the industry representatives listed in Table 1. These estimates represent the average annual burden that will be incurred by the affected industry for the 3 years beginning in October 2003. The following assumptions were used to estimate the respondent burden: 7

Only incremental burden imposed by this rule was considered. Recordkeeping activities already performed by sources regardless of the existence of this rule are not included in the burden calculation.

The burden of planning for recordkeeping will be 2 hours per year.

The burden of maintaining batch records will be 8 hours per month.

The burden of maintaining records of charcoal lighter material test results will be 1 hour per year ( b) Estimating Respondent Costs.

Table 3 also presents estimated costs for the required recordkeeping and reporting activities. Industry labor rates are based on Table 2 of Bureau of Labor Statistics Employment Cost Trends. Overhead of 100 percent was added, resulting in the following labor rates: management ($ 85); technical ($ 59); and clerical ($ 37).

There are no capital costs associated with the rule.

( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost.

Because the information collection requirements were estimated as an incidental part of the standard development, no costs can be attributed to the development of the information collection requirements. Because reporting and recordkeeping requirements on the part of respondents are required under section 183( e) of the Act, no operational costs will be incurred by the Federal government. Examination of records to be maintained by the respondents will occur incidentally as a part of the periodic inspection of sources that is part of the EPA's overall compliance and enforcement program and is not attributable to this ICR. The only costs that the Federal government will incur are costs associated with the review of reported information, as presented in Table 4.

Labor rates and associated costs are based on Office of Personnel Management Table 2003 RUS. Overhead of 60 per cent was added, resulting in the following labor rates: management ( GS15  $ 72); technical ( GS13  $ 51); and clerical ( GS7  $ 24). The number of management hours is assumed to equal 5 percent of the number of technical hours; the number of clerical hours is assumed to equal 1 percent of the number of technical hours ( see Table 4). 8 ( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs The following assumptions were used to estimate the respondent universe and total burden and costs for industry to comply with the various requirements of the rule:

Total number of affected sources is 3000.

Total number of respondents will be 367 as follows:

Number of respondents performing " new" recordkeeping because of this rule will be 10 percent of the total number of affected sources, or about 300 per year.

Number of " new" respondents submitting the one time Initial Notification Reports will be 1 percent of the total number of affected sources, or about 30 per year ( one time Initial Notification Reports already will have been submitted by existing sources subject to the December 10, 1998 and December 10, 1999 compliance dates).

Number of respondents submitting notifications of change of date code system will be 1 percent of the affected sources, or about 30 per year.

Number of respondents submitting variance applications will be 5 per year.

Number of respondents submitting innovative products documentation will be 2 per year.

( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables.

( i) Respondent Tally The bottom line respondent burden hours and cost, presented in Table 3, are calculated by summing the person hours column and by summing the cost column. The annual burden and cost averaged over the 3 years beginning in October 2003 are 29,613 hours and $ 1,104,057. The average burden equals the total burden ( 29,613 hours) divided by the number of respondents ( 367 respondents), or about 81 hours per respondent.

( ii) Agency Tally The bottom line Agency burden and cost are presented in Table 4. The number of management hours is assumed to equal 5 percent of the number of technical hours; the number of clerical hours is assumed to equal 1 percent of the number of technical hours. Agency cost for each activity is calculated by summing the technical, management, and clerical costs for each burden item. The estimated annual burden and cost averaged over the 3 years beginning in October 2003 are 123 hours and $ 6,391.

( iii) Variations in the annual bottom line.

The EPA does not anticipate any significant annual variations in the bottom line after the first year the rule is in effect. 9 ( f) Reasons for Change in Burden.

This renewal of a continuing ICR includes the following one time burden and cost items: reading the rule, the initial report, the explanation of date codes, planning activities, and modifying product labels. To develop the estimates of annual average burden, these one time activities were averaged over 3 years, beginning after the rule has been effective for over a year. Therefore, the EPA assumes that the vast majority of one time Initial Notification Reports already will have been submitted by October 2003. Consequently, only " new" notifications will be submitted during the period covered by this ICR renewal. The assumptions used as a basis for the burden calculations more fully explain this concept. In addition, EPA's experience since the effective date of the rule indicates that the anticipated number of variances and innovative product exemptions sought will be lower than originally estimated.

( g) Burden Statement The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 81 hours per respondent. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OAR 2003 0087, which is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center Docket in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center 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 Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center is ( 202) 566 1742. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select " search," then key in the docket ID number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. ( OAR 2003 0087) and OMB control number ( 2060 0348) in any correspondence. 10 TABLE 3 INDUSTRY BURDEN FOR THE CONSUMER PRODUCTS RULE Burden Item ( A) Person Hours per Occurrence ( B) Number of Occurrences per Respondent per Year ( C)

Person Hours per Respondent per Year ( C= AxB) Dollars per Hour ( D) Respondents per Year ( E) Total Hours per Year ( E= CxD) Total Cost per Year ($)

Reporting Read instructions 2 1 2 85 30 60 5,100 Gather information 1 1 1 59 30 30 1,770 Initial report 1 1 1 37 30 30 1,110 Update date code 1 1 1 37 30 30 1,110 Variance application 2 1 2 85 5 10 850 Innovative products appl. 24 1 24 59 2 48 2,832 Recordkeeping Read instructions ( above)

Plan activities 2 1 2 85 300 600 25,500 Implementation 8 12 96 37 300 28,800 1,065,600 Charcoal lighter results 1 1 1 37 5 5 185 Total Industry Burden 29613 $ 1,104,057 11 TABLE 4 AGENCY BURDEN FOR THE CONSUMER PRODUCTS RULE Burden Item ( A) Person Hours per Occurrence ( B) Occurrences per Year ( C)

Person Hours per Year @ $ 51 ( Technical)

C = A x B) ( D)

Person Hours per Year @ $ 72 ( Management)

( D = C x 0.05) ( E)

Person Hours per Year @ $ 24 ( Clerical)

( E = C x 0.01) ( F) Total Person Hours per Year ( C+ D+ E) ( G) Total Cost per Year ($)

Initial report 1.0 30 30 1.5 0.3 31.8 1660 Revise date code 1.0 30 30 1.5 0.3 31.8 1660 Variance applic. 8.0 5 40 2.0 0.4 42.4 2194 Innovative prod. 8.0 2 16 0.8 0.16 16.96 877 Total Burden 67 116 5.8 1.16 122.96 $ 6391


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 62 (Tuesday, March 31, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17873-17874]
[FR Doc No: 2020-06658]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-10007-51-OA]

Notification of a Public Meeting of the Science Advisory Board
Economic Guidelines Review Panel

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory
Board (SAB) Staff Office announces a public meeting of the Science
Advisory Board Economic Guidelines Review Panel. The purpose of the
meeting is to receive an agency briefing, review charge questions and
hear public comments for the EPA's revised document titled ``Guidelines
for Preparing Economic Analyses.''

DATES: The public teleconference will be held on April 23, 2020, from
11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. (Eastern Time).

ADDRESSES: The public teleconference will be conducted by telephone
only.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public who wants
further information concerning this notice may contact Dr. Shaunta
Hill-Hammond, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), EPA Science Advisory
Board (1400R), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; via telephone/voice mail (202) 564-
3343, or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>General information
about the SAB, as well as any updates concerning the meeting announced
in this notice can be found on the SAB website at http://www.epa.gov/sab.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background: The SAB was established pursuant to the Environmental
Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDDAA),
codified at 42 U.S.C. 4365, to provide independent scientific and
technical advice to the EPA Administrator on the scientific and
technical basis for agency positions and regulations. The SAB is a
Federal Advisory Committee chartered under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. 2. The SAB will comply with the
provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural
policies. Pursuant to FACA and EPA policy, notice is hereby given that
the Science Advisory Board Economic Guidelines Review Panel will hold a
public meeting to receive a briefing from the agency, discuss charge
questions and hear public comments for the EPA's revised document
titled ``Guidelines for Preparing Economic

Analyses.'' The purpose of the document is to define and describe best
practices for economic analysis grounded in the economics literature.
It also describes Executive Orders and other documents that impose
analytic requirements and provides detailed information on selected
important topics for economic analyses.
    Availability of Meeting Materials: All meeting materials, including
the agenda will be available prior to the meetings on the SAB web page
at http://epa.gov/sab.
    Procedures for Providing Public Input: Public comment for
consideration by EPA's federal advisory committees and panels has a
different purpose from public comment provided to EPA program offices.
Therefore, the process for submitting comments to a federal advisory
committee is different from the process used to submit comments to an
EPA program office. Federal advisory committees and panels, including
scientific advisory committees, provide independent advice to the EPA.
Members of the public can submit relevant comments pertaining to the
committee's charge or meeting materials. Input from the public to the
SAB will have the most impact if it provides specific scientific or
technical information or analysis for the SAB to consider or if it
relates to the clarity or accuracy of the technical information.
Members of the public wishing to provide comment should follow the
instruction below to submit comments.
    Oral Statements: In general, individuals or groups requesting an
oral presentation at a public teleconference will be limited to three
minutes. Each person making an oral statement should consider providing
written comments as well as their oral statement so that the points
presented orally can be expanded upon in writing. Persons interested in
providing oral statements should contact the DFO, in writing
(preferably via email) at the contact information noted above, to be
placed on the list of registered speakers by April 15, 2020.
    Written Statements: Written statements will be accepted throughout
the advisory process; however, for timely consideration by SAB members,
statements should be received in the SAB Staff Office by April 15, 2020
Written statements should be supplied to the DFO at the contact
information above via email (preferred) or in hard copy with original
signature. Submitters are requested to provide a signed and unsigned
version of each document because the SAB Staff Office does not publish
documents with signatures on its websites. Members of the public should
be aware that their personal contact information, if included in any
written comments, may be posted to the SAB website. Copyrighted
material will not be posted without explicit permission of the
copyright holder.
    Accessibility: For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, please contact the DFO, at the contact
information noted above, preferably at least ten days prior to the
meeting, to give the EPA as much time as possible to process your
request.

V. Khanna Johnston,
Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office.
[FR Doc. 2020-06658 Filed 3-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: January 21, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 12)]
[Notices]
[Page 3588-3590]
[DOCID:fr21ja09-71]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP03-75-003; CP03-75-004; CP05-361-001; CP05-361-002]

Freeport LNG Development, L.P.; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Freeport LNG Export and Bog
Liquefaction and Truck Delivery Facilities Projects and Request for
Comments on Environmental Issues

January 12, 2009.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
address the environmental impacts of the Freeport LNG Export Project
(Export Project) and Bog Liquefaction and Truck Delivery Facilities
Project (BOG/Truck Project) collective called the Freeport Projects
proposed by Freeport LNG Development, L.P. (Freeport LNG) in Brazoria
County, Texas.\1\ This EA will be used by the Commission in its
decision-making process to determine whether or not to authorize the
projects.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ During routine terminal operations, ambient heat in the LNG
storage tanks and piping causes small amount of LNG to evaporate.
The vaporizing LNG is referred to as BOG or boil-off gas. The BOG
increases the storage tank pressure until a point where it must be
transferred, flared, or re-liquefied.
    \2\ On November 19, and December 9, 2008, Freeport LNG filed its
applications with the Commission under section 3 of the Natural Gas
Act and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations. The Commission
issued its Notices of Application on December 2, and 16, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process we \3\
will use to gather environmental input from the public and interested
agencies on the projects. Your input will help the Commission staff
determine which issues need to be addressed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ `We,' `us,' and `our' refer to the environmental staff of
the FERC's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice is being sent to affected landowners; federal, state,
and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. State and local
government representatives are asked to notify their constituents of
this planned project and encourage them to comment on their areas of
concern.

Summary of the Proposed Projects

Export Project

    The purpose of the project is to add Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)
export

capabilities/functionality to the previously authorized Freeport LNG
Terminal Facilities located in Brazoria County, Texas. Freeport LNG is
seeking authorization to operate its facility for the purpose of
exporting LNG. Freeport LNG proposes to operate its existing Freeport
LNG Terminal facility to export LNG on a short-term basis by holding
cargos of imported LNG in its LNG tanks for re-export. To accomplish
this, Freeport LNG would replace a check valve and upgrade a control
valve. Both valves are on the existing dock of the Freeport LNG
Terminal. The existing dock is shown in the figure included as Appendix
1.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of all appendices are
available on the Commission's Web site at the ``eLibrary'' link or
from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the Public Participation section of
this notice. Copies of the appendices were sent to all those
receiving this notice in the mail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed replacement and modification of the valves would allow
the LNG to be transferred from the LNG storage tanks through the
existing LNG transfer lines to the unloading/loading arms and to a
receiving ship for export and transportation.

BOG/Truck Project

    The purpose of the project is to provide greater latitude to
acquire LNG for maintenance and operation of the existing Phase I
facilities at the previously authorized Freeport LNG Terminal
Facilities located in Brazoria County, Texas during periods when LNG
deliveries may not otherwise be available. The general locations of
these facilities are shown on the map in Appendix 1. The BOG
liquefaction facilities would consist of:
     One BOG liquefaction heat exchanger;
     One BOG liquefaction expander-compressor;
     Two BOG refrigeration compressor units (approximately
1,380 horsepower each);
     Natural gas piping, 4- to 12-inch-diameter aboveground
piping; and
     LNG piping, 4-inch-diameter aboveground piping.
    These facilities would allow Freeport to liquefy about 5 million
cubic feet per day of BOG and return it to the LNG storage tanks in
order to keep the tanks in the necessary cryogenic state. The BOG
liquefaction system would also require pressure and temperature
controllers; and associated electrical, control, lighting
instrumentation, and communication systems.
    In addition, Freeport LNG is proposing certain facility
modifications to enable it to undertake LNG truck unloading activities
in the event that the BOG liquefaction facilities are not available.
LNG would be trucked in from an existing commercial LNG supplier (Clean
Energy Fuels Corporation) located 40 miles north of Houston. The truck
unloading facilities would require the installation of a single 4-inch-
diameter inlet connection and valves on one of the existing LNG
transfer lines and a 25 horsepower portable electric pump, if needed.
Freeport LNG would use these facilities to transfer the LNG from the
trucks to the existing tanks. Freeport LNG anticipates that it would
receive truck deliveries per day, totaling 66,000 gallons of LNG during
the periods when delivery by truck would be required.
    If approved, Freeport LNG proposes to commence construction of the
proposed facilities in spring of 2009.

Land Requirements

    Since the Freeport LNG Terminal already includes all required plant
components to facilitate the Export Project other than the valve
modifications, no land disturbance would be required.
    The land that would be disturbed for the BOG/Truck Project would be
within the footprint of the existing LNG facility.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action. The FERC will use the EA to consider the
environmental impact that could result if the project is authorized
under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act. NEPA also requires us to
discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals. This
process is referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal of the scoping
process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this Notice of Intent, the Commission staff
requests public comments on the scope of the issues to be addressed in
the EA. All comments received will be considered during preparation of
the EA.
    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the proposed project under these
general headings:
     Geology and soils;
     Land use;
     Water resources, fisheries, ballast water, and wetlands;
     Cultural resources;
     Vegetation and wildlife;
     Threatened and endangered species;
     Air quality and noise;
     Hazardous waste; and
     Public safety.
    In the EA, we will also evaluate possible alternatives to the
proposed projects, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid
impacts on affected resources.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be in the EA. Depending
on the comments received during the scoping process, the EA may be
published and mailed to federal, state, and local agencies, public
interest groups, interested individuals, affected landowners,
newspapers, libraries, and the Commission's official service list for
this proceeding. A comment period will be allotted for review if the EA
is published. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make
our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure your comments are
considered, please carefully follow the instructions in the public
participation section below
    With this NOI, we are asking federal, state, and local agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues to formally cooperate with us in the preparation
of the EA. These agencies may choose to participate once they have
evaluated the proposal relative to their responsibilities. Additional
agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status should
follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the Public
Participation section of this NOI.

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have already identified several issues that we think deserve
attention based on a preliminary review of the proposed facilities and
the environmental information provided by Freeport LNG. This
preliminary list of issues may be changed based on your comments and
our analysis.
     Potential impacts on water quality.
     Potential impacts on air quality and potential noise
emissions may occur.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the Freeport Projects. Your comments should
focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives,
and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more
specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that
your

comments are timely and properly recorded, please send in your comments
so that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before February
11, 2009.
    For your convenience, there are three methods which you can use to
submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances please
reference the project docket number CP03-75-003 and CP03-75-004 with
your submission. The docket numbers can be found on the front of this
notice. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has
dedicated eFiling expert staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the Quick
Comment feature, which is located on the Commission's Internet Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. A Quick
Comment is an easy method for interested persons to submit text-only
comments on a project;
    (2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's Internet Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. eFiling
involves preparing your submission in the same manner as you would if
filing on paper, and then saving the file on your computer's hard
drive. You will attach that file as your submission. New eFiling users
must first create an account by clicking on ``Sign up'' or
``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you are
making. A comment on a particular project is considered a ``Comment on
a Filing;'' or
    (3) You may file your comments via mail to the Commission by
sending an original and two copies of your letter to: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE.,
Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
    Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas Branch 2,
PJ11.2.

Environmental Mailing List

    An effort is being made to send this notice to all individuals,
organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially
affected by the proposed project. This includes all who own homes
within distances defined in the Commission's regulations of certain
aboveground facilities.
    If you do not want to send comments at this time but still want to
remain on our mailing list, please return the Information Request
(Appendix 2). If you do not return the Information Request, you will be
taken off the mailing list.

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an ``intervenor,'' which is an official party to the
proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are
able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if
they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor
formally participates in a Commission proceeding by filing a request to
intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are included in the
User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the Commission's Web site.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC (3372) or on
the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the ``eLibrary
link.'' Click on the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and
enter the project docket number excluding the last three digits (i.e.,
CP03-75) in the ``Docket Number'' field. Be sure you have selected an
appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link on the FERC Internet
Web site also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued
by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the FERC now offers a free service called
``eSubscription'' which allows you to keep track of all formal
issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the
amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically
providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries,
and direct links to the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/
esubscribenow.htm.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-1020 Filed 1-16-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


 i       EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR  PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER      Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC    PP #7F8640

 	EPA has received a pesticide petition PP #7F8640 from Syngenta Crop Protection. LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419 requesting, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180     by establishing a tolerance for residues of    emamectin benzoate, 4'-epi-methylamino- 4'-deoxyavermectin B1 benzoate (a mixture  of a minimum of 90% 4'-epi-methylamino-4'- deoxyavermectin B1a and a maximum of 10% 4'-epi-methlyamino-4'deoxyavermectin B1b benzoate), and its metabolites 8,9 isomer of the B1a and B1b component of the parent insecticide in or on the processed agricultural commodity vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 at 0.03 parts per million (ppm).  EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.     Residue Chemistry          Plant metabolism. The metabolism of emamectin benzoate in plants has been studied and the nature of the residue has been determined in lettuce, cabbage, and sweet corn. The major portion of the residue is parent compound and its delta 8,9- photoisomer.  The metabolism of emamectin has also been investigated in goats and poultry to characterize the fate of residues that may be present in animal feed items     Analytical method. Adequate analytical methods (HPLC-fluorescence methods) are available for enforcement purposes.    Magnitude of residues.  In the appropriate growing areas of the US, IR-4 conducted magnitude of residue studies in cucumber (pickling and slicing varieties), cantaloupe, and squash, the representative commodities for crops in the crop group, vegetable, cucurbit, group 9. A total of approximately 0.090 lb ai/A was applied in six foliar applications of Proclaim 5SG at a rate of approximately 0.015 lbs ai/A. Raw agricultural commodities (RAC) samples were harvested 6-8 days after the last treatment. In addition, IR-4 also conducted residue decline trials in 4 locations (3 cucumber and 1 squash). In these decline trials, crop samples were collected at 0, 3, 10, 13, and/or 14 days PHI.

There were no detectable residues of any of the six emamectin benzoate analytes in the cucumber and squash RAC samples harvested at 6-8 days PHI. For thecantaloupe RAC samples harvested at 6-8 days PHI, one of the six analytes, NOA-426007 (emamectin B1a), was present in amounts above the lowest limit of method validation (LLMV). All other analytes were below the LLMV. In the decline trials, squash taken at 0 days PHI showed combined emamectin B1a + 8,9Z residues above the LLMV (all other analytes were below the LLMV) and declined to below the LLMV for all analytes at the subsequent sampling events.

Toxicological Profile  A full description of the studies regarding the toxicity, animal metabolism, and metabolite toxicology, of emamectin benzoate can be found in appendix 1 of EPA's memorandum, "Abamectin.  Human Health Risk Assessment for Uses on Caneberry Subgroup 13-07A; Soybean; Sweet Corn; Ear Tags for Lactating Dairy Cattle; Golf Course Turf; Bean; Onion, Green, Subgroup 3-07B; Fruit, Pome, Group 11-10; Fruit, Small Vine Climbing, Except Fuzzy Kiwifruit, Subgroup 13-07F; Berry, Low Growing, Subgroup 13-07G; Vegetable, Fruiting, Group 8-10; Greenhouse Tomato; Fruit, Citrus, Group 10-10; Fruit, Stone, Group 12-12; and Nut, Tree, Group 14-12; and Various Tropical Fruits.," PC Code:  122804, Decision No.:  480177, 495169, 495170, 478520, 476238, DP Barcode:  D426599, dated April 18, 2016.     C. Aggregate Exposure    1. Dietary exposure. Tier III acute and chronic aggregate exposure evaluations were made for emamectin benzoate using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCIDTM , version 4.02), which incorporates food consumption data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey/"What We Eat in America" (NHANES/WWEIA) dietary survey conducted in 2005-2010. These assessments included all current as well as a number of proposed new uses on cherries, chive, basil, and globe artichokes. Residue data were obtained from field trial residue studies in which emamectin benzoate was applied at the maximum intended use rate and samples were harvested at the minimum pre-harvest interval (PHI) to obtain maximum residue values. Drinking water estimates were incorporated directly into the dietary exposure assessment using the higher of the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) for surface and ground water. Empirically derived processing factors for apple juice (0.05X), apple pomace (4.3X), dried basil (15.2X), dried chive (1.3X), imported wine (0.29X), and cottonseed oil (0.39X) were used in these assessments. Percent crop treated (%CT) values were estimated based upon economic, pest, and competitive pressures. Residue values for meat, milk, and eggs of livestock were calculated using the "maximum reasonably balanced diet" (MRBD) dietary burden approach in conjunction with transfer factors obtained from livestock feeding and/or metabolism studies. For poultry, the EPA has determined that secondary residues are not anticipated. For swine, MRBDs constructed in the usual manner were used in conjunction with transfer factors from a dairy feeding study to predict residues in hog meat.          Food.           Acute Exposure.  The emamectin benzoate acute dietary (food only) risk assessment was performed for all population subgroups with an acute reference dose of 0.0025 mg/kg-bw/day based on sub-chronic and chronic oral toxicity studies in dogs with a No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) of 0.25 mg/kg-bw/day and an uncertainty factor of 100X. The 100-fold safety factor includes intra- and interspecies variations; no additional FQPA safety factors were included in these assessments. For the purpose of the aggregate risk assessment, exposure values were expressed in terms of margin of exposure (MOE), which was calculated by dividing the NOAEL by the exposure for each population subgroup. In addition, exposure was also expressed as a percentage of the acute reference dose (%aRfD). Acute (food only) exposure to the U.S. population resulted in a MOE of 1,558 (6.4% of the acute RfD of 0.0025 mg/kg-bw/day). The most sensitive sub-population was children (3-5 years old) with a MOE of 876 (11.4% of the aRfD). Since the Benchmark MOE for this assessment was 100 and since the EPA generally has no concern for exposures above the benchmark or below 100% of the reference dose, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from acute food exposure to residues arising from all current and proposed uses for emamectin benzoate.                 Chronic Exposure.  The emamectin benzoate chronic dietary (food only) risk assessment was performed for all population subgroups with a chronic reference dose of 0.0025 mg/kg-bw/day based on sub-chronic and chronic oral toxicity studies in dogs with a No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) of 0.25 mg/kg-bw/day and an uncertainty factor of 100X. The 100-fold safety factor includes intra- and interspecies variations; no additional FQPA safety factors were included in these assessments. For the purpose of the aggregate risk assessment, exposure values were expressed in terms of margin of exposure (MOE), which was calculated by dividing the NOAEL by the exposure for each population subgroup. In addition, exposure was also expressed as a percent of the chronic reference dose (%cRfD). Chronic (food only) exposure to the U.S. population resulted in a MOE of 42,127 (0.2% of the chronic RfD of 0.0025 mg/kg-bw/day). The most sensitive sub-population was children (1-2 years old) with a MOE of 15,238 (0.7% of the chronic RfD). Since the Benchmark MOE for this assessment was 100 and since the EPA generally has no concern for exposures above the benchmark or below 100% of the reference dose, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from chronic food exposure to residues arising from all current and proposed uses for emamectin benzoate.         Cancer Risk.  Emamectin benzoate is considered "not likely to be a human carcinogen". Therefore, no cancer risk assessment was performed for emamectin benzoate.    Drinking water. The estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of emamectin benzoate (expressed as total toxic residues of parent plus 8,9- Z isomer, AB, MFB, and FAB) were derived from the Pesticide Water Calculator (PWC, v1.52) graphical user interface which incorporates the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Variable Volume Water Model (PRZM/VVWM) Tier II surface water and Tier I PRZM ground water modelling platforms. Simulations were conducted to determine the highest EDWCs resulting from current labelled uses and proposed uses on cherries, artichoke, chives and basil. PWC ground water modelling showed incomplete breakthrough following a 100-year simulation. Tier II PWC surface water modelling of proposed applications to cucurbit vegetables provided the highest acute and chronic EDWCs of 0.980 ppb and 0.292 ppb, respectively. Surface water EDWCs were not adjusted for Percent Cropped Area (PCA) factor. Since surface water EDWCs exceed the ground water EDWC, surface water concentrations were used for risk assessment purposes and will be considered protective for any ground water exposure concerns.              Acute Exposure from Drinking Water:  The acute surface water EDWC of 0.980 ppb was input directly into the DEEM-FCID(TM) software as "water, direct and indirect, all sources" to model the acute drinking water exposures. Drinking water exposures at the 99.9th percentile were determined by taking the difference between the aggregate exposures (food + drinking water) and food exposures (food only) for each population subgroup. Acute drinking water exposure to the U.S. population resulted in a MOE of 3,521 (2.8% of the aRfD of 0.0025 mg/kg-bw/day). The most sensitive sub-population was all infants <1 year old, with a MOE of 2,137 (4.7% of the aRfD of 0.0025 mg/kg-bw/day). Since the benchmark MOE for this assessment is 100 and since EPA generally has no concern for exposures above the benchmark or below 100% of the aRfD, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from acute drinking water exposures to residues arising from all current and proposed uses for emamectin benzoate.   Chronic Exposure from Drinking Water:  The chronic surface water EDWC of 0.292 ppb was input directly into the DEEM-FCID(TM) software as "water, direct and indirect, all sources" to model the chronic drinking water exposures. Chronic drinking water  exposure to the U.S. population resulted in a MOE of 42,375 (0.2% of the cRfD of 0.0025 mg/kg-bw/day). Chronic drinking water exposure to the most exposed sub-population (infants, <1 year old) resulted in a MOE of 11,344 (0.9% of the cRfD of 0.0025 mg/kg-bw/day). Since the Benchmark MOE for this assessment was 100 and since EPA generally has no concern for exposures above the benchmark or below 100% of the cRfD, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from chronic drinking water exposure to residues arising from all current and proposed uses for emamectin benzoate.         D. Cumulative Effects    Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) requires EPA to consider available evidence concerning the cumulative effects of pesticide residues and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity (i.e., a common toxic effect to human health by the same, or essentially the same, sequence of major biochemical events). The agency determined in its April 18, 2016 human health risk assessments (D426599) that abamectin and emamectin benzoate form a candidate common mechanism group (CMG) for the avermectin macrocyclic lactones. Syngenta conducted screening-level acute, short-term, and chronic cumulative exposure analyses for the avermectin macrocyclic lactones abamectin and emamectin benzoate using the screening framework outlined in the Pesticide Cumulative Risk Assessment: Framework for Screening Analysis Purpose (USEPA, 2016). These screening-level assessments evaluate combined exposures of abamectin and emamectin, and are therefore an overestimate of exposure and risk since they assume a complete co-occurrence of residues of abamectin and emamectin from food, drinking water, and residential sources.  The cumulative abamectin and emamectin cumulative assessments were performed for all population subgroups with acute and chronic reference doses of 0.0025 mg/kg-bw/day, based on oral toxicity studies in dogs with a NOAEL of 0.25 mg/kg-bw/day and an uncertainty factor of 100X. The 100-fold safety factor includes intra- and interspecies variations. The short-term cumulative assessments utilized the same NOAEL of 0.25 mg/kg-bw/day and an uncertainty factor of 100X (LOC = 100).  In the acute cumulative assessments, exposures for the U.S. population resulted in a cumulative acute MOE of 273 (36.7% of the aRfD of 0.0025 mg/kg-bw/day). The most sensitive sub-population was children (1-2 years old) with a cumulative acute MOE of 138 (72.2% of the aRfD). In the short-term cumulative assessments, exposures for the U.S. population resulted in a cumulative short-term MOE of 3,095 (Level of Concern = 100). The most sensitive sub-population was children 1-2 years old with a cumulative short-term MOE of 1,559 (Level of Concern = 100). In the chronic cumulative assessments, exposures for the U.S. population resulted in a cumulative chronic MOE of 4,717 (2.1% of the cRfD of 0.0025 mg/kg-bw/day). The most sensitive sub-population was children 1-2 years old with a cumulative chronic MOE of 1,563 (6.4% of the cRfD). These screening-level cumulative aggregate acute, short-term, and chronic assessment indicate that cumulative exposures for abamectin and emamectin benzoate are below the Agency's level of concern.     E. Safety Determination     U.S. population. The acute dietary exposure analysis (food plus drinking water) showed that exposure from all current and proposed emamectin benzoate crop uses result in a MOE of 1,082 (9.2% of the aRfD, Benchmark MOE = 100) for the general U.S. population. No short-term exposure risk assessment was performed, as there are no registered uses of emamectin benzoate that would result in residential handler exposure. The chronic dietary exposure analysis (food plus drinking water) showed that exposure from all current and proposed emamectin benzoate crop uses result in a MOE of 21,125 (0.4% of the cRfD, Benchmark MOE = 100) for the general U.S. population. Based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data supporting these uses, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general U.S. population from aggregate exposure to residues arising from all current proposed emamectin benzoate uses, including anticipated dietary exposure from food and water.          Infants and children. The acute dietary exposure analysis (food plus drinking water) showed that exposure from all current and proposed emamectin benzoate uses results in a MOE of 678 (14.8% of the aRfD) for infants less than 1 year old (the most sensitive population subgroup). The chronic dietary exposure analysis (food plus drinking water) showed that exposure from all current and proposed emamectin benzoate uses result in a MOE of 7,327 (1.4% of the cRfD) for infants less than 1 year old (the most sensitive population subgroup). Based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data supporting these uses, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to residues arising from all current and proposed emamectin benzoate uses, including anticipated dietary exposure from food and water.            F. International Tolerances    Codex has established Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) for emamectin benzoate on commodities including almond hulls, brassica vegetables, cotton seed, cucurbit vegetables, fruiting vegetables, leafy vegetables, pome fruits, tomato, tree nuts, turnips, and wine.