[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 243 (Monday, December 19, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 91927-91929]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30468]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0718; FRL-9956-47]

Designation of Ten Chemical Substances for Initial Risk
Evaluations Under the Toxic Substances Control Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: As required by the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), as
amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century
Act in June 2016, EPA is publishing an initial list of ten (10)
chemical substances that will be the subject of the Agency's chemical
risk evaluations to determine whether the chemical substances present
an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. The law
requires that EPA initiate risk evaluations on 10 chemical substances
drawn from the 2014 update of the TSCA Work Plan for Chemical
Assessments and that EPA publish this list within 180 days of enactment
(i.e., by December 19, 2016). EPA's designation of the first ten
chemical substances constitutes the initiation of the risk evaluation
process for each of these chemical substances, pursuant to the
requirements of TSCA section 6(b)(4). For each chemical substance,
within six months from the date of publication of this notice, EPA will
issue a scoping document. EPA has also established dockets for each of
these chemical substances to document each risk evaluation and to
facilitate receipt of information that will be useful to the Agency's
risk evaluation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact:
Sheila Canavan, Chemical Control Division (Mail Code 7405M), Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 566-1978; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture
(defined under TSCA to include import), process, distribute in
commerce, use or dispose of any of the ten chemical substances
identified in this document for risk evaluation. This action may be of
particular interest to entities that are regulated under TSCA (e.g.,
entities identified under North American Industrial Classification
System (NAICS) codes 325 and 324110, among others). Since other
entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to
describe all the specific entities and corresponding NAICS codes for
entities that may be interested in or affected by this action.

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

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0718, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center
(EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-
0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is announcing the first 10 chemical substances that it will
evaluate for potential risks to human health and the environment under
TSCA section 6(b)(2)(A), as amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical
Safety for the 21st Century Act (https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/evaluating-risk-existing-chemicals-under-tsca#chemical names). As amended, the law requires that risk evaluation
be initiated on 10 chemical substances drawn from the 2014 update of
the TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments (Ref. 1) and that EPA
publish this list within 180 days of enactment (i.e., by December 19,
2016). The 10 chemical substances for which EPA is initiating risk
evaluations are as follows:
     1,4-Dioxane;
     1-Bromopropane;
     Asbestos;
     Carbon Tetrachloride;
     Cyclic Aliphatic Bromide Cluster (HBCD);
     Methylene Chloride;
     N-Methylpyrrolidone (NMP);
     Pigment Violet 29 (Anthra[2,1,9-def:6,5,10-
d'e'f']diisoquinoline-1,3,8,10(2H,9H)-tetrone);
     Trichloroethylene (TCE);
     Tetrachloroethylene (also known as perchloroethylene).

III. What is the authority for this action?

    On June 22, 2016, the President signed into law the ``Frank R.
Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act,'' which amended
TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.). The amendments give EPA improved
authority to take actions to protect people and the environment from
the effects of dangerous chemical substances. Additional information on
the new law is available on EPA's Web site at: https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/frank-r-lautenberg-chemical-safety-21st-century-act. One of the key features of the new
law is the requirement that EPA now systematically prioritize and
assess existing chemical substances and manage identified risks.
Through a combination of new authorities, a risk-based safety standard,
mandatory deadlines for action, and minimum throughput requirements,
TSCA effectively creates a pipeline by which EPA will conduct review
and management of existing chemical substances. This new pipeline--from
prioritization to risk evaluation to risk management (when warranted)--
is intended to drive steady forward progress on evaluating and
addressing risks from existing chemical substances. Risk evaluation is
a key step in this process.
    TSCA section 6(b) specifies the requirements for risk evaluations.
Section 6(b)(2)(A) requires EPA to ``ensure that risk evaluations are
being conducted on 10 chemical substances drawn from the 2014 update of
the TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments and shall publish the list
of such chemical substances'' not later than 180 days after enactment
of the law.

IV. Initiation for Risk Evaluation

A. Statutory Requirements for Risk Evaluations

    EPA's designation in this document of the first 10 chemical
substances for risk evaluation constitutes the initiation of the risk
evaluation process for each of these chemical substances, pursuant to
the requirements of section 6(b)(4) of TSCA. These chemical substances
are now in the process of risk evaluation to determine whether they
``present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment,
without consideration of costs or other non-risk factors, including an
unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation
identified as relevant to the risk evaluation by the Administrator,
under the conditions of use.''
    Within six months from the date of publication of this notice
(i.e., June 19, 2017), EPA will issue a scoping document that will
include information about the chemical substance, such as the hazards,
exposures, conditions of use, and the potentially exposed or
susceptible subpopulations the Agency expects to consider in the risk
evaluation. TSCA generally requires that these chemical risk
evaluations be completed within three years of initiation, allowing for
a single 6-month extension.
    For each risk evaluation that EPA completes (other than industry-
requested risk evaluations under TSCA section 6(b)(4)(C)(ii)), TSCA
requires that EPA begin another risk evaluation. Additional chemical
substances will be designated as high priority for risk evaluation, and
have their risks evaluated under section 6(b)(4). By the end of 2019,
EPA must have at least 20 chemical risk evaluations ongoing at any
given time.

B. How did EPA select the first 10 chemicals?

    TSCA requires that EPA choose the first 10 chemical substances from
the list of 90 chemical substances on the 2014 update of the TSCA Work
Plan for Chemical Assessments. TSCA Work Plan chemicals were selected
based on their hazard and potential exposure, as well as other
considerations such as persistence and bioaccumulation. In selecting
the first 10 chemical

substances, EPA took into account scientific information documented in
the 2014 Work Plan, and recommendations from stakeholders and the
public. EPA has established a separate docket for each of these
chemical substances to document the risk evaluation process and to
facilitate receipt of information which may be useful to the Agency's
risk evaluations. The following list of the first 10 chemical
substances includes their exposure and hazard information from the 2014
Work Plan and their docket ID number:
    1,4-Dioxane. Exposure Information from 2014 Work Plan: Used in
consumer products. Present in groundwater, ambient air and indoor
environments. High reported releases to the environment. Hazard
Information from 2014 Work Plan: Possible human carcinogen. Docket ID
No.: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0723.
    1-Bromopropane. Exposure Information from 2014 Work Plan: Used in
consumer products. Present in drinking water, indoor environments,
surface water, ambient air, groundwater, soil. Estimated to have high
releases to the environment. Hazard Information from 2014 Work Plan:
Possible human carcinogen. Docket ID No.: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0741.
    Asbestos. Exposure Information from 2014 Work Plan: Used in chlor-
alkali production, consumer products, coatings and compounds, plastics,
roofing products, and other applications. Also found in certain
imported products such as brakes, friction products, gaskets, packing
materials and building materials. Hazard Information from 2014 Work
Plan: Known human carcinogen; Acute and chronic toxicity from
inhalation exposures. Docket ID No.: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0736.
    Carbon Tetrachloride. Exposure Information from 2014 Work Plan:
Used in commercial/industrial products. Present in biomonitoring,
drinking water, indoor environments, surface water, ambient air,
groundwater, soil. High reported releases to the environment. Hazard
Information from 2014 Work Plan: Probable human carcinogen. Docket ID
No.: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0733.
    Cyclic Aliphatic Bromide Cluster (HBCD). Exposure Information from
2014 Work Plan: Flame retardant in extruded polystyrene foam, textiles,
and electrical and electronic appliances. Hazard Information from 2014
Work Plan: Acute aquatic toxicity. Docket ID No.: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-
0735.
    Methylene Chloride. Exposure Information from 2014 Work Plan: Used
in consumer products. Present in drinking water, indoor environments,
ambient air, groundwater, and soil. Hazard Information from 2014 Work
Plan: Probable human carcinogen. Docket ID No.: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0742.
    N-Methylpyrrolidone (NMP). Exposure Information from 2014 Work
Plan: Used in consumer products. Present in drinking water and indoor
environments. High reported releases into the environment. Hazard
Information from 2014 Work Plan: Reproductive toxicity. Docket ID No.:
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0743.
    Pigment Violet 29 (Anthra[2,1,9-def:6,5,10-de'f']diisoquinoline-
1,3,8,10(2H,9H)-tetrone). Exposure Information from 2014 Work Plan:
Used in consumer products. Estimated to have moderate releases to the
environment. Hazard Information from 2014 Work Plan: Aquatic toxicity.
Docket ID No.: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0725.
    Trichloroethylene (TCE). Exposure Information from 2014 Work Plan:
Used in consumer products. Present in drinking water, indoor
environments, surface water, ambient air, groundwater, and soil. Hazard
Information from 2014 Work Plan: Probable human carcinogen. Docket ID
No.: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0737.
    Tetrachloroethylene (also known as perchloroethylene). Exposure
Information from 2014 Work Plan: Used in consumer products and dry
cleaning. Present in biomonitoring, drinking water, indoor
environments, ambient air, groundwater, soil. High reported releases to
the environment. Hazard Information from 2014 Work Plan: Probable human
carcinogen. Docket ID No.: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0732.

III. References

    The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically
referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and
other information considered by EPA, including documents that are
referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even
if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For
assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    1. EPA. TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments: 2014 Update.
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/tsca-work-plan-chemical-assessments-2014-update. October 2014.

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

    Dated: December 13, 2016.
James J. Jones,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2016-30468 Filed 12-16-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 106 (Thursday, June 2, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35363-35367]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12950]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-D-0055]

Voluntary Sodium Reduction Goals: Target Mean and Upper Bound
Concentrations for Sodium in Commercially Processed, Packaged, and
Prepared Foods; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the
availability of a draft guidance entitled ``Voluntary Sodium Reduction
Goals: Target Mean and Upper Bound Concentrations for Sodium in
Commercially Processed, Packaged, and Prepared Foods.'' The draft
guidance, when finalized, will describe our views on voluntary short-
term and long-term goals for sodium reduction in a variety of
identified categories of foods that are commercially processed,
packaged, or prepared. These goals are intended to address the
excessive intake of sodium in the current population and promote
improvements in public health.

DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on the
draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the
guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on Issues 1
through 4 listed in section IV of this document by August 31, 2016.
Submit either electronic or written comments on Issues 5 through 8
listed in section IV of this document by October 31, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are

solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any
confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be
posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social
Security number, or confidential business information, such as a
manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name,
contact information, or other information that identifies you in the
body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2014-D-0055 for ``Voluntary Sodium Reduction Goals: Target Mean and
Upper Bound Concentrations for Sodium in Commercially Processed,
Packaged, and Prepared Foods; Draft Guidance for Industry.'' Received
comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted
as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not
wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available,
you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body
of your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to
the Office of Food Additive Safety, Center for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition (HFS-255), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch
Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740. Send two self-addressed adhesive labels
to assist that office in processing your request. See the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft guidance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kasey Heintz, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (HFS-255), Food and Drug Administration, 5100
Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    Many expert advisory panels have concluded that scientific evidence
supports the value of reducing sodium intake in the general population
(Ref. 1). Recent analysis, including the findings of the 2013 Institute
of Medicine (IOM) report, ``Sodium Intake in Populations: Assessment of
Evidence'' (IOM report), continue to support this conclusion (Ref. 2).
The 2013 IOM report confirmed a positive relationship between higher
levels of sodium intake and the risk of heart disease, and found
substantial evidence of population benefit and no evidence of negative
health effects associated with reductions in sodium intake down to
2,300 milligrams of sodium per day (mg/day) (Ref. 2). Members of the
committee which authored the 2013 IOM report also clarified in a
subsequent publication that different groups using a variety of methods
and data have obtained results consistent with the committee's analysis
that current U.S. intake is excessive, that it should be reduced, and
that reduction is expected to have significant public health benefit
(Ref. 3). Moreover, the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee
Sodium Working Group examined the relationship between sodium and blood
pressure and other cardiovascular outcomes in adults, as well as sodium
and blood pressure in children. The Committee's recommendations
concurred with previous reports that sodium intake among the U.S.
population remains high and that higher levels of sodium intake are
associated with increased blood pressure and risk of cardiovascular
disease (Ref. 4).
    Multiple researchers have estimated the public health benefits
associated with broad reduction in sodium intakes in the United States
(Ref. 1). Reasonable reductions in average intake (modeled at a variety
of intake levels below current intake, down to an average level of
roughly 2,200 mg/day) have been estimated to result in tens of
thousands fewer cases of heart disease and stroke each year, as well as
billions of dollars in health care savings over time. A recent study
(Ref. 5) used three epidemiological datasets to forecast the separate
public health benefits of reducing the population's average sodium
intake to 2,200 mg/day over 10 years. (This 2,200 mg/day final mean
intake level was derived from intake values embedded in the sources of
evidence used for the study.) Researchers found that this pattern of
reduction would save between 280,000 and 500,000 premature deaths over
10 years; sustained sodium reduction would prevent additional premature
deaths.
    FDA is not conducting rulemaking with regard to sodium, and these
goals are voluntary. Given the potentially significant benefits to
public health, as well as FDA's role in safeguarding America's food
supply and enabling consumers to choose healthy diets, we are committed
to exploring effective and efficient strategies to promote sodium
reduction in the food supply. We believe that these voluntary goals can
be an effective means to achieve significant benefits to public health
through sodium reduction in commercially processed, packaged, and
prepared foods.

II. Background

    We are announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry
entitled ``Voluntary Sodium Reduction Goals: Target Mean and Upper
Bound Concentrations for Sodium in Commercially Processed, Packaged,
and Prepared Foods.'' (For purposes of this draft guidance,
``commercially processed, packaged, and prepared foods'' refers to
processed, multiple-ingredient foods that have been packaged by a
member of the food industry for direct sale to consumers or for use in
restaurants and similar retail food establishments including, but not
limited to, restaurants, or for resale to other members of the food
industry, as well as foods that are prepared by food establishments for
direct consumption.) The draft guidance provides information to the
food industry on sodium reduction, expressed as measurable voluntary
goals for sodium content (from sodium chloride, commonly called
``salt,'' as well as other sodium-containing ingredients) in
commercially processed, packaged, and prepared foods. Approximately 75
percent of sodium consumed by Americans is added to foods before they
are sold (Ref. 6). Thus, the goals are intended to promote reductions
in the amount of sodium added during processing, manufacturing, and
preparation, especially for uses not necessary for microbial safety,
stability, and/or physical integrity. We particularly encourage
attention by food manufacturers whose products make up a significant
proportion of national sales in one or more categories and restaurant
chains that are national or regional in scope.
    Broad adoption of these voluntary recommendations by the industry
members would create a meaningful reduction in population intake over
time and support adjustment of consumer taste preferences. We recognize
that many companies have initiated sodium reduction efforts and have
made commitments on their own. The voluntary goals are intended to
support ongoing efforts, including progress that has already been made
by industry. This approach also builds on other efforts such as an
initiative by New York City in partnership with local and State health
departments and health organizations and international approaches from
foreign governments such as Canada and the United Kingdom. The
voluntary goals are intended to provide a shared framework for
describing and analyzing the success of voluntary reduction efforts by
various industry stakeholders and to promote continued discussion on
sodium reduction opportunities. The guidance is intended to help
achieve public health goals and see safe, gradual, and broadly
distributed change over time across the full range of commercially
processed, packaged, and prepared foods. To accomplish these goals,
discussion and collaboration among FDA, Federal partners, the food
industry, consumers, and other stakeholders will be essential.
    We are issuing the draft guidance consistent with our good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized, will represent the current thinking of the FDA on this
topic. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not
binding on FDA or the public. You may use an alternate approach to
reducing sodium as long as these approaches satisfy the requirements of
the applicable statutes and regulations.
    The draft guidance provides our tentative views with respect to
identifying challenging, yet feasible, target mean and upper bound
concentrations of sodium (referred to in this document as ``sodium
concentration goals'') across a wide variety of food categories. Our
targets are based on our analysis of the current minimum and upper
bound levels of sodium in a variety of identified food categories,
available literature on the amount of salt needed for different
functions in food, and discussions with experts on different food
categories. Our milestone date for the short-term goals is the second
year after publication of the final guidance. Our milestone date for
the long-term goals is the 10th year after publication of the final
guidance. The short-term targets are intended to be more easily
achievable and as many as half of all products may already have
achieved these interim targets. We recognize that the longer term
targets are more difficult to achieve. We are aware that new
ingredients capable of replacing some salt as well as other innovative
strategies are being explored and more research and development may be
needed. We also want to make clear that broader public health goals and
maintenance of nutritional quality are important considerations in
developing sodium reduction or reformulation strategies. For example,
sodium reduction that relies on increases in added sugars would not be
consistent with the public health goals of this guidance.
    The sodium concentration goals in this voluntary draft guidance are
intended to:
     Support increased food choice for consumers seeking to
consume a diverse diet that is consistent with recommendations of the
2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans;
     support the 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines and the Healthy
People 2020 recommendations of less than 2,300 mg per day for many
individuals;
     provide shared goals as metrics (mg/100g) for voluntary
reduction efforts by various industry stakeholders;
     support successful efforts already underway in the private
sector to reduce sodium content;
     focus on total amount of sodium in a given food as opposed
to any individual sodium-containing ingredient; and
     support and extend industry's voluntary efforts to reduce
sodium across the range of commercially processed, packaged, and
prepared foods.
    This guidance does not:
     Recommend specific methods and technologies for sodium
reduction;
     prescribe how much of any individual sodium-containing
ingredient, such as salt or sodium nitrite, should be used in a
formulation (in other words, we focus on the total amount of sodium in
a given food);
     focus on foods that contain only naturally occurring
sodium (e.g., milk); or
     address salt that individuals add to their food.
    As described in the notice ``Approaches to Reducing Sodium
Consumption; Establishment of Dockets; Request for Comments, Data, and
Information'' (76 FR 57050, September 15, 2011, referred to in this
document as the 2011 request for comment), current sodium intake is
substantially higher than what scientific and public health agencies
and organizations have recommended in recent years. There have been a
number of public and industry initiatives to reduce sodium intake, as
well as initiatives in other countries (76 FR 57050 at 75051). In April
2010, IOM released a report titled ``Strategies to Reduce Sodium Intake
in the United States'' which concluded that sodium intake, with the
greatest contribution from salt, remains well above recommended levels
(Ref. 1).
    We recognize that a successful effort to reduce sodium intake
requires information on a wide variety of topics, resulting from a
genuine dialogue with all interested persons. To begin this dialogue,
in 2011, FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) opened parallel dockets for public
comment and described the rationale for sodium intake reduction and
identified 15 specific issues for

comment by all interested persons (76 FR 57050). These issues concerned
multiple aspects of sodium reduction, including technical challenges
and opportunities, implementation of reduction targets, and potential
unintended consequences of reduction.
    In November 2011, FDA and FSIS, in conjunction with other Federal
agencies interested in sodium reduction efforts, including the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention and USDA's Agricultural Research
Service and Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, sponsored a
public meeting to provide a forum for discussion of the issues raised
in the 2011 request for comment. FDA and FSIS together received
approximately 1,500 comments, which addressed the following key themes:
     The need for slow and gradual change;
     the importance of acknowledging technical and regulatory
constraints;
     the need for consumer acceptance and market viability of
new or reformulated products;
     the critical importance of maintaining a safe food supply;
     the potential health consequences of broad sodium
reduction;
     the costs associated with broad reductions in sodium;
     the potential for positive incentives to promote
reformulation; and
     reports of successful reduction efforts.
    We reviewed the comments submitted to the 2011 request for comments
as well as other available information. In particular, we have
considered the 2013 IOM report, ``Sodium Intake in Populations:
Assessment of Evidence.'' The IOM report concluded that evidence from
studies on direct health outcomes associated with sodium intake was
sufficient to support reducing excessive sodium intake, noting a
benefit for cardiovascular disease outcomes if population sodium intake
came down to a level of 2,300 mg/day. Ultimately, this report
reaffirmed the association between sodium intake and health outcomes,
which supports the need to engage in population-based efforts to lower
excessive dietary sodium intakes (Ref. 2).

III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collections of information in 21 CFR part 101 have been approved under
OMB control number 0910-0381. The collections of information in 21 CFR
101.11 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0783.

IV. Issues for Consideration

    We developed the sodium targets using the best available
representation of sodium in the food supply, based on product nutrition
data from manufacturers and widely used sales data. We welcome comment
on any issues related to the methods for developing the sodium targets
and for implementation of this guidance. In particular, we are
interested in comments on collecting and organizing these data into
food categories, our methods for quantifying sodium content,
refinements to the specific mean and upper bound targets based on
adjustments of our category structures and data, and any challenges of
implementing the voluntary goals. Please provide the reasoning behind
your comments, including, where available, any data you may have.
    1. Are there categories where foods have been grouped together that
should be separated on the basis of different manufacturing methods or
technical effects relating to the potential for sodium reduction?
Conversely, are there categories which could be merged due to similar
sodium functionality and potential for reduction? Are there foods that
contribute to sodium intake that we have not effectively captured? Are
the categories amenable for use by restaurant chains and if not, how
should they be modified to make them amenable for use by restaurant
chains?
    2. Are the baseline sodium concentration values reasonably
representative of the state of the food supply in 2010? For categories
that do not appear representative, what food products are not
adequately represented? Are there situations in which our method of
quantification could lead to unrepresentative baseline values?
    3. Are there categories for which the 2-year target concentration
goals are infeasible? If so, why are these targets not feasible, e.g.,
for technical reasons? What goals would be feasible in the short-term
(2-year), and why? For reference, a supplementary memorandum to the
docket is provided to further describe the type of information needed,
``Target Development Example: Supplementary Memorandum to the Draft
Guidance'' (Ref. 7).
    4. Are the short-term (2-year) timeframes for these goals
achievable? If the timeframes are not achievable, what timeframes would
be challenging, but still achievable?
    5. Are there categories for which the 10-year target concentration
goals are infeasible? If so, why are these targets not feasible, e.g.,
for technical reasons? What goals would be feasible in the long-term
(10-year), and why? For reference, a supplementary memorandum to the
docket is provided to further describe the type of information needed,
``Target Development Example: Supplementary Memorandum to the Draft
Guidance'' (Ref. 7).
    6. Are the long-term (10-year) timeframes for these goals
achievable? If the timeframes are not achievable, what timeframes would
be challenging, but still achievable?
    7. What specific research needs or technological advances (if any)
could enhance the food industry's ability to meet these goals? What are
possible innovations in the area of sodium reduction and are there any
unintended consequences associated with their use?
    8. What amendments to FDA's standard of identity regulations in 21
CFR parts 130-169 are needed to facilitate sodium reduction by
permitting alternative ingredients to be used in standardized foods?
For example, amendments could include revisions to specific standards
(e.g., cheese or cheese products) and to the general requirements for
foods named by use of a nutrient content claim (e.g., ``reduced
sodium'') and a standardized term under 21 CFR 130.10.

V. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance
at either http://www.fda.gov/FoodGuidances, or http://www.regulations.gov. Use the FDA Web site listed in the previous
sentence to find the most current version of the guidance.

VI. References

    The following references are on display in FDA's Division of
Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) and are available for viewing by
interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday;
they are also available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov.
FDA has verified the Web site addresses, but FDA is not responsible for
any subsequent changes to Web sites after this document publishes in
the Federal Register.

    1. IOM. ``Strategies to Reduce Sodium Intake in the United
States,'' Washington DC: The National Academies Press (2010).
    2. IOM. ``Sodium Intake in Populations: Assessment of Evidence
Institutes of

Medicine (IOM) Report,'' Washington DC: The National Academies Press
(2013).
    3. Strom, B. L., C. A. M. Anderson, and J. H. Ix. ``Sodium
Reduction in Populations: Insights From the Institute of Medicine
Committee.'' Journal of the American Medical Association. July 3,
2013; 310(1): 31-32.
    4. ``Scientific Report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory
Committee,'' Part B, Chapter 6. http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015-scientific-report/. Accessed March 9, 2015.
    5. Coxson, P. G., N. R. Cook, M. Joffres, Y. Hong, et al.
``Mortality Benefits From U.S. Population-Wide Reduction in Sodium
Consumption.'' Hypertension. March 2013; 61:564-570.
    6. Mattes, R. D. and D. Donnelly. ``Relative Constitutions of
Dietary Sodium Sources.'' Journal of the American College of
Nutrition. August 1991;10(4):383-93.
    7. FDA. ``Memo: Target Development Example: Supplementary
Memorandum to the Draft Guidance (2016).''

    Dated: May 27, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-12950 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


Neal Fann/RTP/USEPA/US

07/08/2008 10:21 AM

To

<EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

Lead RIA benefits analysis

Heidi,

Two weeks ago we walked through the key improvements to the lead benefits analysis. I think this conversation was very useful in clarifying what changes to the analysis we were considering. Among those issues that we discussed, there are two in particular for which I thought it would be helpful to further detail our approach.

1. Air: Blood ratios.  As you probably recall, in the proposal RIA we used a range from 1:2 (value from '78 NAAQS) to 1:7 (Hilts). We used the 1:5 ratio (drawn from NPRM and consistent with results from the urban case study) to generate our central benefits estimate. To the extent that the Evidence Calculations consider additional, or different, air:blood ratios, we would make a conforming change to the RIA.

2. Non-Air blood lead background levels. As we discussed during the call last week, there are two baselines that affect the benefits analysis. The first is the level of ambient air lead, which we expect to decline over time due to a variety of federal and state rules. This reduces the air quality increment needed to attain alternate standards, which in turn reduces estimated benefits relative to a baseline using current ambient lead.  We've reflected this factor in the analysis. The second baseline is the non-air background blood level. The non-air blood lead background level determines the portion of the concentration-response curve over which there is an incremental change in blood lead--this is clearly important when the concentration-response curve is non-linear (as the Lanphear LLL is). We've looked into adjusting the background levels based on the lead renovation and repair rule and do not believe that the available data would support such a calculation. Moreover, we illustrate the influence of the level of non-air blood lead background on our benefits estimates in our sensitivity analysis and find it to be small. Instead of projecting this value, we will give more prominence to the sensitivity analysis as a way of highlighting the influence of this input.

Please let me know if you have any questions or if you'd like to discuss these issues further.

Thanks,

Neal

_________________________________

Neal Fann

USEPA

Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards

Air Benefit and Cost Group

C439-02

RTP, NC 27711

voice:<PHONE_NUMBER>

fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>


From: Denis Lalonde [ mailto: lalonded@ norbord. com] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 9: 54 AM To: Hanks, Katie P. Subject: RE: Question regarding conveyor dryer definitions Hi Katie, see our opinion/ comments below. Please call me if you have any questions at 450 447 0409.

Regards,

Denis  Original Message From: Hanks, Katie P. [ mailto: kphanks@ rti. org] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 9: 55 AM To: ' lalondeD@ norbord. com' Cc: Mary Kissell ( E mail); ' quosaip@ norbord. com' Subject: Question regarding conveyor dryer definitions I am trying to write definitions of " conveyor strand dryer" and " conveyor strand dryer zone" for the final PCWP rule. I would appreciate an opinion from someone in the PCWP industry who uses conveyor dryers. Below is what I have drafted. Do these definitions make sense or is there a better way to define?

" Conveyor strand dryer" means a conveyor dryer operated at elevated temperature and used to reduce the moisture of wood strands used in the manufacture of OSB, LSL, or other wood strand based products. A conveyor strand dryer is a process unit.

[ Norbord: We believe " elevated temperature" might lead to confusion in interpretation. It is probably not necessary to refer to a temperature level ( elevated or low) since by design and operation, the operating temperatures in conveyor dryers are inherently and relatively low. Elevated temperatures in a conveyor dryer will inevitably create fires in the dryers, due to wood dust over drying and subsequent combustion. Consequently we suggest that the definition be: " Conveyor strand dryer" means a conveyor dryer used to reduce the moisture of wood strands used in the manufacture of OSB, LSL, or other wood strand based products. A conveyor strand dryer is a process unit."]

" Conveyor strand dryer zone" means each portion of a conveyor strand dryer with a separate heat exchange system and exhaust vent. Conveyor dryers typically contain three zones, which may be divided into multiple sections.

[ Norbord: Each zone can have more than one exhaust vent, therefore the word vent could be written with a ( s) eg. exhaust vent( s). Also, it is possible that future generations of conveyor dryers could have 4 zones instead of the current typical 3. Is the word " typically" flexible enough to allow for different number of zones, in the future?]

Katie Hanks RTI International 3040 Cornwallis Road Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 ( 919) 316 3732 ( 919) 541 7155 ( fax) kphanks@ rti. org


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 157 (Thursday, August 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47722-47723]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19189]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0078; Notice 1]

AGC Flat Glass North America, Inc., Receipt of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Receipt of Petition.

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

SUMMARY: AGC Flat Glass North America, Inc., dba AGC Automotive
Americas Co. (AGC) has determined that certain glazing that it
manufactured as replacement equipment for model year 2003-2008 Toyota
Matrix vehicles, do not fully comply with paragraphs S5.1 and S5.7 of
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing
Materials. AGC has filed an appropriate report dated May 23, 2013,
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility
and Reports.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is September 15,
2014.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and be
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to: U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Deliver: Deliver comments by hand to: U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. The
Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except
Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by: logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at
http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that your comments were received, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that
all comments received will be posted without change to
http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
    Documents submitted to a docket may be viewed by anyone at the
address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the
Internet at http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov by following the online
instructions for accessing the dockets. DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement is available for review in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).
    The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received
before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will
be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or
denied, notice of the decision will be published in the Federal
Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. AGC's Petition: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see
implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556), AGC submitted a petition for an
exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety.
    This notice of receipt of AGC's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    II. Replacement Equipment Involved: Affected are approximately
1,435 replacement back windows (backlites) for model year 2003-2008
Toyota Matrix vehicles that AGC manufactured on February 28, 2012. The
subject glass is labeled ``AGC Automotive, DOT-376 M2H5 AS2, 30B,
Temperlite.''
    In the associated Defect and Noncompliance Report that AGC
submitted to NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, AGC indicated that, as
of May 23, 2014, approximately 941 of the affected backlites have
already been removed from the stream of commerce.
    III. Noncompliance: AGC explains that the noncompliance is that the
affected glazing does not fully comply with Paragraph S5.1 of FMVSS No.
205 because some portions of the glass located in the wing area of the
backlites may not fragment into pieces that are small enough to meet
the standard set forth in ANSI Z26.1-1996 (fragment must weigh less
than 4.25 g).
    IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S5.1 of FMVSS No. 205 incorporates by
reference ANSI Z26.1-1996 and other industry standards. Paragraph S5.7
(Fracture Test) of ANSI Z26.1-1996 requires that no individual fragment
free of cracks and obtained within 3 minutes subsequent to test shall
weigh more than 4.25 g (0.15 oz.).
    V. Summary of AGC's Analyses: AGC stated its belief that the
noncompliance exhibited by some glass fragments breaking into pieces
that weigh more than 4.25 g does not create a risk to motor vehicle
safety for the following reasons:
    1. AGC testing demonstrates that the noncompliant fragments have no
adverse impact on the characteristics of the glass performing as
tempered glass.
    2. The design of the 2003-2008 Toyota Matrix leaves it unlikely to
cause any safety risks to any vehicle occupant if the ARG backlite
breaks.
    3. AGC's destructive testing confirmed all noncompliant fragments
do not impact the safety of the vehicle or its occupants.
    AGC stated that while it recognizes that its tests were static and
that the actual results in a crash might be somewhat different if a
collision broke this glass, AGC stated its belief that in a rear or
partial rear collision, if the glass breaks, most of that glass will
fall and remain in the general area of the breakage since the remainder
of the vehicle will be propelled forward in the

later phases of the crash. This makes it even less likely that any
glass will enter or be propelled forward enough to reach the passenger
compartment of a vehicle. ARG expects that the subject backlites will
react no differently.
    Refer to AGC's petition for more detailed descriptions of AGC's
data and analyses that it believes support its reasoning.
    AGC has additionally informed NHTSA that it has corrected the
noncompliance so that all future production of the subject glazing will
fully comply with FMVSS No. 205.
    In summation, AGC believes that the described noncompliance of the
subject glazing is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that
its petition, to exempt AGC from providing recall notification of
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject replacement equipment that
AGC no longer controlled at the time it determined that the
noncompliance existed. However, any decision on this petition does not
relieve equipment distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the
sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into
interstate commerce of the noncompliant replacement equipment under
their control after AGC notified them that the subject noncompliance
existed.

    Authority:  (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8)

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2014-19189 Filed 8-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 169 (Friday, August 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 53755]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21268]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OA-2013-0124]

Good Neighbor Environmental Board; Notification of Public
Advisory Committee Teleconference

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of public advisory committee teleconference.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-
463, notice is hereby given that the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
(GNEB) will hold a public teleconference on Tuesday, September 24,
2013. The meeting will take place from 12 p.m. to 4 p.m. Eastern
Standard Time. The meeting is open to the public. For further
information regarding the teleconference and background materials,
please contact Mark Joyce at the number listed below.

DATES: Tuesday, September 24, 2013. The meeting will take place from 12
p.m. to 4 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background: GNEB is a federal advisory committee chartered under
the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463. GNEB provides
advice and recommendations to the President and Congress on
environmental and infrastructure issues along the U.S. border with
Mexico.
    Purpose of Meeting: The purpose of this teleconference is to
discuss the Good Neighbor Environmental Board's Sixteenth Report and
preliminary advice letter. The report and advice letter will focus on
ecological restoration in the U.S.-Mexico border region.
    General Information: The agenda and meeting materials will be
available at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OA-
2013-0124. General information about GNEB can be found on its Web site
at www.epa.gov/ofacmo/gneb.
    If you wish to make oral comments or submit written comments to the
Board, please contact Mark Joyce at least five days prior to the
meeting. Written comments should be submitted at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OA-2013-0124.
    Meeting Access: For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, please contact Mark Joyce at (202) 564-
2130 or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To request accommodation of a
disability, please contact Mark Joyce at least 10 days prior to the
meeting to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: August 21, 2013.
Mark Joyce,
Acting Designated Federal Officer.
[FR Doc. 2013-21268 Filed 8-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 47 (Thursday, March 10, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12726-12727]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05352]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-3097-005.
    Applicants: Bruce Power Inc.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Bruce Power
Inc.
    Filed Date: 3/2/16.
    Accession Number: 20160302-5237.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-917-001; ER10-2870-006; ER10-2865-006; ER10-
2860-007; ER10-2872-005; ER10-2868-005; ER14-2458-001; ER11-3013-005.
    Applicants: TC Ironwood LLC, TransCanada Power Marketing Ltd,
TransCanada Energy Sales Ltd., TC Ravenswood, LLC, TransCanada Maine
Wind Development Inc., TransCanada Hydro Northeast Inc., Ocean State
Power LLC, Coolidge Power LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of TransCanada
MBR Sellers.
    Filed Date: 3/2/16.
    Accession Number: 20160302-5238.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-923-001.
    Applicants: Puget Sound Energy, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: EIM Revision Filing Due to Effective
Date Issue to be effective 5/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 3/2/16.
    Accession Number: 20160302-5192.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/9/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-975-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Niagara
Mohawk Power Corporation.
    Description: Amendment to February 19, 2016 Joint Notice of
Termination of Small Generator Interconnection Service Agreement No.
1483 Among the New York Independent System Operator, Inc., et al.
    Filed Date: 3/2/16.
    Accession Number: 20160302-5206.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/16/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1062-000.
    Applicants: MidAmerican Energy Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Services Tariff v.2 to be
effective 4/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 3/3/16.
    Accession Number: 20160303-5014.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/24/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1063-000.
    Applicants: Emera Maine.
    Description: Notice of Termination of Emera Maine of
Interconnection and Operating Agreement No. 42 under Bangor-Hydro
Electric Company, FERC Electric Tariff 2nd Revised Volume No. 2.
    Filed Date: 3/2/16.
    Accession Number: 20160302-5243.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1064-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 1636R15 Kansas Electric
Power Cooperative, Inc. NITSA and NOA to be effective 8/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/3/16.
    Accession Number: 20160303-5029.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/24/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1065-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 1875R1 Kansas Electric Power
Cooperative, Inc. NITSA and NOA to be effective 8/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/3/16.
    Accession Number: 20160303-5031.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/24/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1068-000.
    Applicants: East Ridge Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Transmission Agreement and
Request for Certain Waivers and Blanket Approvals to be effective 5/3/
2016.
    Filed Date: 3/3/16.
    Accession Number: 20160303-5129.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/24/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1069-000.
    Applicants: East Ridge Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Transmission Agreement and
Request for Certain Waivers and Blanket Approvals to be effective 5/3/
2016.
    Filed Date: 3/3/16.
    Accession Number: 20160303-5130.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/24/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1070-000.
    Applicants: East Ridge Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Transmission Agreement and
Request for Certain Waivers and Blanket Approvals to be effective 5/3/
2016.
    Filed Date: 3/3/16.
    Accession Number: 20160303-5131.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/24/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1071-000.
    Applicants: East Ridge Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Transmission Agreement and
Request for Certain Waivers and Blanket Approvals to be effective 5/3/
2016.
    Filed Date: 3/3/16.
    Accession Number: 20160303-5132.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/24/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1072-000.
    Applicants: East Ridge Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Transmission Agreement and
Request for Certain Waivers and Blanket Approvals to be effective 5/3/
2016.
    Filed Date: 3/3/16.
    Accession Number: 20160303-5133.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/24/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1073-000.
    Applicants: East Ridge Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Transmission Agreement and
Request for Certain Waivers and Blanket Approvals to be effective 5/3/
2016.
    Filed Date: 3/3/16.
    Accession Number: 20160303-5136.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/24/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1074-000.
    Applicants: East Ridge Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Transmission Agreement and
Request for Certain Waivers and Blanket Approvals to be effective 5/3/
2016.
    Filed Date: 3/3/16.
    Accession Number: 20160303-5141.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/24/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1075-000.
    Applicants: East Ridge Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Transmission Agreement and
Request for Certain Waivers and Blanket Approvals to be effective 5/3/
2016.
    Filed Date: 3/3/16.
    Accession Number: 20160303-5147.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/24/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
reliability filings:

    Docket Numbers: RR15-2-004.
    Applicants: North American Electric Reliability Corp.
    Description: North American Electric Reliability Corporation
Compliance Filing and Petition for Approval of Rules of Procedure
Revision.
    Filed Date: 3/3/16.
    Accession Number: 20160303-5146.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/24/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 3, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-05352 Filed 3-9-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 17, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 157)]
[Notices]
[Page 41426-41427]
[DOCID:fr17au09-71]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings No. 1

August 7, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP09-865-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, LLC submits
Second Revised Sheet 531 to its FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh Revised Volume
1 to be effective 9/5/09.
    Filed Date: 8/5/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090805-0031.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 17, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-866-000.
    Applicants: Trailblazer Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Trailblazer Pipeline Company, LLC submits Second
Revised Sheet 245 to its FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume 1 to be
effective 9/5/09.
    Filed Date: 8/5/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090805-0032.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 17, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-867-000.
    Applicants: Horizon Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Horizon Pipeline Company, LLC submits Sixth Revised
Sheet 224 to its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1 to be effective 9/
5/09.
    Filed Date: 8/5/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090805-0033.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 17, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-868-000.
    Applicants: Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline, LLC submits Second
Revised Sheet 243 to its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1 to be
effective 9/5/09.
    Filed Date: 8/5/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090805-0035.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 17, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-869-000.
    Applicants: Kinder Morgan Illinois Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Kinder Morgan Illinois Pipeline LLC submits Second
Revised Sheet 226 of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1 to be
effective 9/5/09.
    Filed Date: 8/5/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090805-0034.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 17, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-870-000.
    Applicants: Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc.
    Description: Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc submits Thirty
Fourth Revised Sheet 21 et al. to its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised
Volume 1 to be effective 10/1/09.
    Filed Date: 8/5/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090805-0036.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 17, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-871-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Midcontinent Express Pipeline, LLC submits Second
Revised Sheet 225 to its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1, to be
effective 9/5/09.
    Filed Date: 8/5/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090806-0024.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 17, 2009.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    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 St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to any subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-19595 Filed 8-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 169 (Friday, August 30, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45702-45703]
[FR Doc No: 2019-18834]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 174 and 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0041; FRL-9998-15]

Receipt of a Pesticide Petition Filed for Residues of Pesticide
Chemicals in or on Various Commodities (July 2019)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of filing of petition and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the Agency's receipt of an initial
filing of a pesticide petition requesting the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or
on various commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 30, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional
instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Goodis, Registration Division
(7505P), main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Robert McNally, Biopesticides and Pollution
Prevention Division (7511P), main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The mailing address for each
contact person is: Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-
0001. As part of the mailing address, include the contact person's
name, division, and mail code. The division to contact is listed at the
end of each pesticide petition summary.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is announcing receipt of a pesticide petition filed under
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21
U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of
regulations in 40 CFR part 174 and part 180 for residues of pesticide
chemicals in or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking
public comment on the request before responding to the petitioner. EPA
is not proposing any particular action at this time. EPA has determined
that the pesticide petition described in this document contains data or
information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2), 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the
submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of
the pesticide petition. After considering the public comments, EPA
intends to evaluate whether and what action may be warranted.
Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final determination
on this pesticide petition.

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petition that is the
subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a
docket EPA has created for this rulemaking. The docket for this
petition is available at http://www.regulations.gov.
    As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA
is publishing notice of the petition so that the public has an
opportunity to comment on this request for the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food
commodities. Further information on the petition may be obtained
through the petition summary referenced in this unit.

A. Amended Tolerance

    1. PP 9E8746. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0249). Interregional Research
Project No. 4 (IR-4), IR-4 Project Headquarters, Rutgers, The State
University of NJ, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ
08540, requests to amend 40 CFR 180.653 by removing the established
tolerances of residues of the insecticide novaluron, including its
metabolites and degradates, in or on the following commodities:
Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A at 0.50 parts per million (ppm);
brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B at 25 ppm; cotton, undelinted seed
at 0.60 ppm; turnip, greens at 25 ppm; and vegetable, fruiting, group
8-10 at 1.0 ppm. Contact: RD.

B. New Tolerances for Non-Inerts

    1. PP 8E8707. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0385). BASF Corporation, P.O. Box
13528, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, requests to establish
tolerances in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the insecticide,
metaflumizone in or on imported apple at 1.0 ppm; apple, wet pomace at
3.0 ppm; coffee at 0.15 ppm, melon subgroup 9A at 1.0 ppm; fruit,
small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwi fruit, subgroup 13-07F at 5.0
ppm; grape, raisin at 10 ppm, cattle, fat at 0.05 ppm; goat, fat at
0.05 ppm; horse, fat at 0.05 ppm; lemon/lime subgroup 10-10B at 3.0
ppm; lemon/lime subgroup 10-10B, oil at 42 ppm; milk fat at 0.1 ppm;
orange subgroup 10-10A at 3.0 ppm; orange subgroup 10-10A, oil at 42
ppm; and sheep, fat at 0.05 ppm. The BASF Analytical method used is No.
531/1 was developed to determine residues of metaflumizone and its
metabolites (M320I04 and M320I23) in crop matrices. In this method,
residues of metaflumizone are extracted from plant matrices with
methanol/water (70:30; v/v) and then partitioned into dichloromethane.
The final determination of metaflumizone and its metabolites is
performed by liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC/
MS/MS). Contact: RD.
    2. PP 8F8676. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0413). ISK Biosciences Corporation,
7470 Auburn Road, Suite A., Concord, OH 44077, requests to establish a
tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the herbicide tiafenacil,
including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the following raw
agricultural commodities: Corn, which includes field corn and popcorn,
at 0.01 ppm; cottonseed subgroup 20C, gin byproducts at 3.0 ppm;
cottonseed subgroup 20C, undelinted seed at 0.5 ppm; grape at 0.01 ppm;
grape, raisin at 0.01 ppm; soybean seed at 0.01 ppm; and wheat grain at
0.01 ppm. The practical analytical method Liquid Chromatography-MS/MS
is used to measure and evaluate the chemical tiafenacil and its
metabolites. Contact: RD.
    3. PP 9E8745. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0233). IR-4, IR-4 Project
Headquarters, Rutgers, The State University of NJ, 500 College Road
East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to amend 40 CFR part
180 by establishing tolerances for residues of 2,4-D in or on the raw
agricultural commodity: Wheatgrass, intermediate, bran at 4.0 ppm;
wheatgrass, intermediate, grain at 2.0 ppm; wheatgrass, intermediate,
straw at 50 ppm; and to establish an inadvertent tolerance for sesame,
seed at 0.1 ppm. An adequate gas chromatography/electron capture
detector (GC/ECD) enforcement method for plants (designated as EN-CAS
Method No. ENC-2/93) which has been independently validated. Adequate
radiovalidation data have been submitted and evaluated for the
enforcement method using samples from the wheat metabolism study.
Contact: RD.
    4. PP 9E8746. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0249). IR-4, IR-4 Project
Headquarters, Rutgers, The State University of NJ, 500 College Road
East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to amend 40 CFR part
180.598 by establishing the tolerances for residues of the insecticide
novaluron, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the
following commodities: Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B at 25
ppm; cottonseed subgroup 20C at 0.6 ppm; kohlrabi at 0.7 ppm; sunflower
subgroup 20B at 0.07 ppm; tropical and subtropical, small fruit,
inedible peel, subgroup 24A at 9 ppm; vegetable, brassica, head and
stem, group 5-16 at 0.7 ppm; vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10 at 1.5
ppm. An adequate analytical enforcement method, GC/ECD, and a high-
performance liquid chromatography/ultraviolet method (HPLC/UV) for
enforcing tolerances of novaluron residues in or on different matrices
are available. Contact: RD.
    5. PP 9E8756. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0383). Tea Association of the USA,
Inc. 362 5th Ave--Suite 1002 New York, NY 10001, requests to establish
a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the insecticide
hexythiazox, (trans-5-(4-chlorophenyl)-N-cyclohexyl-4-methyl-2-
oxothiazolidine-3-carboxamide) in or on imported tea at 15 ppm. The
high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) using mass spectrometric
detection (LC-MS/MS) analytical method is used to measure and evaluate
the residues of hexythiazox and its metabolites containing the (4-
chlorophenyl)-4-methyl-2-oxo-3-thiazolidine moiety. Contact: RD.
    6. PP 9E8768. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0387). IR-4, IR-4 Project
Headquarters, Rutgers, The State University of NJ, 500 College Road
East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to amend 40 CFR part
180 by establishing a tolerance for residues of acequinocyl, 33-
dodecyl-1,4-dihydro-1,4-dioxo-2-naphthyl acetate and its metabolite 2-
dodecyl-3-hydroxy-1,4-naphthoquinone expressed as acequinocyl
equivalents in or on the raw agricultural commodities bushberry
subgroup 13-07B at 3 ppm. The analytical method to quantitate residues
of acequinocyl and acequinocyl-OH in/on fruit crops utilizes HPLC using
mass spectrometric (MS/MS) detection. The target limit of quantitation
(LOQ) is 0.01 ppm. Contact: RD.

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a.

    Dated: August 22, 2019.
Delores Barber,
Director, Information Technology and Resources Management Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2019-18834 Filed 8-29-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P