[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 111 (Thursday, June 9, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 37231]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13617]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Notice of Exempt Preliminary Roll-Up Communication, SEC File No.
270-396, OMB Control No. 3235-0452.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Exchange Act Rule 14a-6(n) (17 CFR 240.14a-6(n)) requires any
person that engages in a proxy solicitation subject to Exchange Act
Rule 14a-2(b)(4) [(17 CFR 240.14a-2(b)(4))] to file a Notice of Exempt
Preliminary Roll-Up Communication (``Notice'') [(17 CFR 240.14a-104)]
with the Commission. The Notice provides information regarding
ownership interest and any potential conflicts of interest to be
included in statements submitted by or on behalf of a person engaging
in the solicitation. The Notice takes approximately 0.25 hours per
response and is filed by approximately 4 respondents for a total of one
annual burden hour (0.25 hours per response x 4 response).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    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 control number.
    Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: June 3, 2016.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-13617 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 228 (Wednesday, November 26, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70438-70441]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27357]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0191; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-256-AD;
Amendment 39-18030; AD 2014-23-14]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. This AD was prompted
by reports of swing arm assemblies of engine fuel feed ejector pumps
detaching from the outlet port of the engine fuel feed ejector pump and
partially blocking the engine fuel feed line. This AD requires
installing a restrictor into the engine fuel feed line. We are issuing
this AD to prevent blocked engine fuel flow and possible engine
flameout.

DATES: This AD becomes effective December 31, 2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference

of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 31, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0191 or in person at
the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier,
Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto,
Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at
the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Morton Lee, Propulsion Engineer,
Propulsion & Services Branch, ANE-173, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc.
Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on April 9, 2014 (79 FR 19546).
    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2013-35, dated November 15, 2013 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-
400 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    There have been incidents of the ``ENG FUEL PRESS'' caution
light illuminating in-flight. An investigation revealed the engine
fuel feed ejector pump swing arm assembly became detached from the
outlet port of the engine fuel feed ejector pump and partially
blocked the engine fuel feed line. If the failed swing arm assembly
migrates along the fuel line downstream of the Fuel Tank AUX Pump
junction, it could block the engine fuel flow and the affected
engine may experience a flameout condition.
    Bombardier issued Service Bulletin (SB) 84-28-16 to introduce a
restrictor into the engine fuel feed line that is designed to
contain a detached ejector pump swing arm assembly.
    This [Canadian] AD mandates the installation of a restrictor
into the engine fuel feed line to prevent possible engine flameout.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0191-0002.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79
FR 19546, April 9, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Require Compliance With Relevant Instructions in Service
Information

    Horizon Air asked that we revise the NPRM (79 FR 19546, April 9,
2014) to specify only those instructions required to correct the unsafe
condition. Horizon Air explained that paragraph (g) of the NPRM is more
restrictive than necessary to ensure safety of flight, and that the
Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-16,
Revision B, dated June 17, 2013, should not be mandated in its
entirety. Horizon Air stated that the job set-up and close-out sections
of the Accomplishment Instructions do not directly correct the unsafe
condition; incorporating those sections as a requirement of the AD
restricts an operator's ability to perform other maintenance, in
conjunction with incorporation of the instructions in the service
information.
    We agree to refer only to the procedures that address the
identified unsafe condition. We have revised paragraph (g) of this AD
to refer paragraph 3.B., ``Procedure,'' of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-16, Revision B, dated
June 17, 2013.

Request To Remove Repair Approval Language

    Horizon Air asked that we remove the ``Airworthy Product'' language
in paragraph (i)(2) of the NPRM (79 FR 19546, April 9, 2014), which
states, in part, ``For a repair method to be approved, the repair
approval must specifically refer to this AD.'' Horizon Air stated that
this sentence should not be included in the final rule, or at the very
least it should be modified, because it will place an unnecessary
regulatory burden on operators with airplanes built in Canada. Horizon
Air added that Transport Canada Civil Aviation is the State holding
design authority for Bombardier Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes; the
NPRM simply restates the requirements of the TCCA AD. Horizon Air noted
that any repairs created by Bombardier would have to be in compliance
with the TCAA AD, and the repair would specifically refer to the TCCA
AD. Horizon Air also stated that the bilateral agreement between Canada
and the United States accepts documents approved by TCAA as meeting the
requirements for FAA approval. Horizon Air does not see the need for
referencing the U.S. AD number when the repair is approved by TCCA and
refers to the Canadian AD; therefore, the repair meets the approval
requirements from the State holding the Design Authority. Horizon Air
concluded that if this requirement is retained, it would force
operators to go back to the manufacturer and request a revision to the
repair method to add the U.S. AD number, even if the repair method is
referenced in the TCCA AD.
    We concur with the commenter's request to remove the requirement to
refer to this AD in repair approvals. Since late 2006, we have included
the paragraph titled ``Airworthy Product'' in all MCAI ADs in which the
FAA develops an AD based on a foreign authority's AD. The MCAI or
referenced service information in an FAA AD often directs the owner/
operator to contact the manufacturer for corrective actions, such as a
repair. Briefly, the Airworthy Product paragraph allowed owners/
operators to use corrective actions provided by the manufacturer if
those actions were FAA-approved. In addition, the paragraph stated that
any actions approved by the State of Design Authority (or its delegated
agent) are considered to be FAA-approved.
    In the NPRM (79 FR 19546, April 9, 2014), we proposed to prevent
the use of repairs that were not specifically developed to correct the
unsafe condition, by requiring that the repair approval provided by the
State of Design Authority or its delegated agent specifically refer to
this FAA AD. This change was intended to clarify the method of
compliance and to provide operators with better visibility of repairs
that are specifically developed and approved to correct the unsafe
condition. In addition, we proposed to change the phrase ``its
delegated agent'' to include a design approval holder (DAH) with State
of Design Authority design organization approval (DOA), as applicable,
to refer to a DAH authorized to approve required repairs for the
proposed AD.
    In addition to Horizon Air's comments to the NPRM (79 FR 19546,
April 9, 2014) about these proposed

changes, a comment was provided for an NPRM having Directorate
Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013). The
commenter stated the following: ``The proposed wording, being specific
to repairs, eliminates the interpretation that Airbus messages are
acceptable for approving minor deviations (corrective actions) needed
during accomplishment of an AD mandated Airbus service bulletin.''
    This comment has made the FAA aware that some operators have
misunderstood or misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to
allow the owner/operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer
as approval of deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated
action. The Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or
other information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the
requirements of the AD-mandated actions. The Airworthy Product
paragraph only addresses the requirement to contact the manufacturer
for corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition and does not
cover deviations from other AD requirements. However, deviations to AD-
required actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, and anyone may request
the approval for an alternative method of compliance to the AD-required
actions using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the
Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed the paragraph and retitled
it ``Contacting the Manufacturer.'' This paragraph now clarifies that
for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a
manufacturer, the actions must be accomplished using a method approved
by the FAA, TCCA, or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval
Organization (DAO).
    The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if
approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized
signature. The DAO signature indicates that the data and information
contained in the document are TCCA-approved, which is also FAA-
approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer
that does not contain the DAO-authorized signature approval are not
TCCA-approved, unless TCCA directly approves the manufacturer's message
or other information.
    This clarification does not remove flexibility previously afforded
by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA
policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This
is also consistent with the recommendation of the Airworthiness
Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase
flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in
manufacturers' service instructions that are ``Required for
Compliance'' with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to
implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is
required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an
alternative method of compliance.
    Other commenters to the NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-
101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013) pointed out that in many cases
the foreign manufacturer's service bulletin and the foreign authority's
MCAI might have been issued some time before the FAA AD. Therefore, the
DOA might have provided U.S. operators with an approved repair,
developed with full awareness of the unsafe condition, before the FAA
AD is issued. Under these circumstances, to comply with the FAA AD, the
operator would be required to go back to the manufacturer's DOA and
obtain a new approval document, adding time and expense to the
compliance process with no safety benefit.
    Based on these comments, we removed the requirement that the DAH-
provided repair specifically refer to this AD. Before adopting such a
requirement, the FAA will coordinate with affected DAHs and verify they
are prepared to implement means to ensure that their repair approvals
consider the unsafe condition addressed in this AD. Any such
requirements will be adopted through the normal AD rulemaking process,
including notice-and-comment procedures, when appropriate.
    We also have decided not to include a generic reference to either
the ``delegated agent'' or ``DAH with State of Design Authority design
organization approval,'' but instead we have provided the specific
delegation approval granted by the State of Design Authority for the
DAH throughout this AD.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (79 FR 19546, April 9, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 19546, April 9, 2014).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 81 airplanes of U.S. registry. We
estimate the following costs to comply with this AD.
    We also estimate that it takes about 12 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost about $0 per product. Based
on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to
be $82,620, or $1,020 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0191; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2014-23-14 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-18030. Docket No. FAA-
2014-0191; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-256-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective December 31, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -
402 airplanes; certificated in any category; serial numbers 4001,
and 4003 through 4417 inclusive, with installed engine fuel feed
ejector pump having part number (P/N) 2960008-102.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of swing arm assemblies of
engine fuel feed ejector pumps detaching from the outlet port of the
engine fuel feed ejector pump and partially blocking the engine fuel
feed line. We are issuing this AD to prevent blocked engine fuel
flow and possible engine flameout.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Installation

    Within 6,000 flight hours or 36 months, whichever occurs first,
after the effective date of this AD, install a restrictor into the
engine fuel feed line, in accordance with paragraph 3.B.,
``Procedure,'' of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier
Service Bulletin 84-28-16, Revision B, dated June 17, 2013.

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph
(g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-16, dated
July 16, 2012; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-16, Revision A,
dated May 23, 2013; which are not incorporated by reference in this
AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO, ANE-170, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In
accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal
inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate.
If sending information directly to the ACO, send it to ATTN: Program
Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600
Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-
7300; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must
specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO,
ANE-170, Engine and Propeller Directorate, FAA; or TCCA; or
Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If
approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized
signature.

(j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2013-35, dated November
15, 2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0191-0002.
    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (k)(3) and (k)(4) of this AD.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-16, Revision B, dated June
17, 2013.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt
Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet
http://www.bombardier.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 6, 2014.
Jeffrey E. Duven
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-27357 Filed 11-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 229 (Wednesday, November 27, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65391-65392]
[FR Doc No: 2019-25764]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0120; FRL-10002-67-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; National Volatile Organic Compound Emission
Standards for Automobile Refinish Coatings (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted
an Information Collection Request (ICR), National Volatile Organic
Compound Emission Standards for Automobile Refinish Coatings (EPA ICR
Number 1765.09, OMB Control Number 2060-0353) to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR,
which is currently approved through January 31, 2020. Public comments
were previously requested via the Federal Register on March 18, 2019,
during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30
days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given
below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. 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.

DATES: Additional comments must be submitted on or before December 27,
2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2003-0120, to (1) the EPA online using https://www.regulations.gov/
(our preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail
to: EPA Docket Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB
via email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk
Officer for the EPA.
    The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Kim Teal, Sector Policies and
Programs Division (D243-04), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
https://www.regulations.gov/ or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA
WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington,
DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For
additional information about the EPA's public docket, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The EPA is required under section 183(e) of the Clean Air
Act (CAA) to regulate volatile organic compound emissions from the use
of consumer and commercial products. Pursuant to CAA section 183(e)(3),
the EPA published a list of consumer and commercial products and a
schedule for their regulation (60 FR 15264). Automobile refinish
coatings were included on the list, and the standards for such coatings
are codified at 40 CFR part 59, subpart B. The reports required under
the standards enable the EPA to identify all coating and coating
component manufacturers and importers in the United States and to
determine which coatings and coating components are subject to the
standards, based on dates of manufacture.
    Form numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Manufacturers and importers of
automobile refinish coatings and coating components.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory, 40 CFR part 59,
subpart B.
    Estimated number of respondents: 30 (total).

    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Total estimated burden: 14 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5
CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $980 (per year), includes $0 annualized
capital or operation and maintenance costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is no change in hours in the total
estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by
OMB.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2019-25764 Filed 11-26-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 168 (Wednesday, August 29, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44045-44046]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18752]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0516; FRL-9981-64]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Extension of
an Existing Collection (EPA ICR No. 0586.14); Comment Request

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this
document announces that EPA is planning to submit an Information
Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
The ICR, entitled: ``TSCA Section 8(a) Preliminary Assessment
Information Rule (PAIR)'' and identified by EPA ICR No. 0586.14 and OMB
Control No. 2070-0054, represents the renewal of an existing ICR that
is scheduled to expire on April 30, 2019. Before submitting the ICR to
OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific
aspects of the proposed information collection that is summarized in
this document. The ICR and accompanying material are available in the
docket for public review and comment.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 29, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0516, 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: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact:
Andrea Mojica, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-0599; email address: [email protected].
    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What information is EPA particularly interested in?

    Pursuant to PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)),
EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility.
    2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burden of
the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used.
    3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected.
    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

II. What information collection activity or ICR does this action apply
to?

    Title: TSCA Section 8(a) Preliminary Assessment Information Rule
(PAIR).
    ICR number: EPA ICR No. 0586.14.
    OMB control number: OMB Control No. 2070-0054.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on April 30,
2019. 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 in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), after
appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR
part 9, are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or
by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection
instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers
for certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: On June 22, 1982, EPA promulgated the generic section
8(a) PAIR (40 CFR part 712) under the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA). EPA uses PAIR to collect information to help identify, assess,
and manage human health and environmental risks from chemical
substances, mixtures and categories of chemical substances and
mixtures. PAIR requires chemical manufacturers (including importers) to
complete and submit standardized information about production, use, or
exposure-related data to help evaluate the potential for human health
and environmental risks caused by the manufacture of identified
chemical substances or mixtures. The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical
Safety for the 21st Century Act amending TSCA was enacted on June 22,
2016; however, the underlying authority for a Section 8(a) PAIR rule
was not modified. While the Agency has not issued a Section 8(a) PAIR
rule since 2006, given the new requirement under amended TSCA Section
6(b)(1) to prioritize chemicals for risk evaluation, it is possible
that the Agency may start requesting section 8(a) reporting more
frequently.
    EPA or other federal agencies (e.g., the agencies that are part of
the Interagency Testing Committee (ITC) as authorized under TSCA
section 4(e)) can identify chemicals for a TSCA section 8(a) PAIR
expediated rulemaking that have a justifiable need for production, use,
or exposure-related data. In instances, such as when EPA must reach a
decision on whether testing of a chemical is necessary, the information
that EPA receives from a PAIR report may

contribute to satisfying EPA's information needs.
    This information collection activity also covers certain specific
chemical testing and reporting requirements under Subpart B of 40 CFR
part 766 that are in part very similar to the PAIR requirements. The
Agency rarely receives submissions of the information required by 40
CFR 766. EPA received less than five submissions over the course of the
last OMB approval for this aspect of the information collection.
    The dibenzo-para-dioxin/dibenzofuran regulations at 40 CFR part 766
require that any person who manufactures, imports, or processes a
chemical substance listed at 40 CFR 766.25 test that chemical substance
and submit appropriate information to EPA according to the schedules
described at 40 CFR 766.35. Persons who commence manufacture, import,
or processing of a chemical substance listed at 40 CFR 766.25 must
submit a letter of intent to test or an exemption application within
60-days of starting any of those activities. Each person who is
manufacturing or processing a chemical listed in 40 CFR 766.25 must
submit a protocol for testing according to the schedule at 40 CFR
766.35(a)(2). Persons who manufacture or import a chemical substance
listed under 40 CFR 766.25 must report positive test results, using the
Dioxin/Furan Report Form (EPA Form 7710-51), of all existing test data
that show that chemical substance has been tested for the presence of
halogenated dibenzodioxins/halogenated dibenzofurans (HDDs/HDFs), as
well as any health and safety studies for the chemical substance, as
defined in the regulation, no later than 90 days after the date of
submission of the positive test result. Additionally, any manufacturer
or importer of a chemical substance listed in 40 CFR 766.25 in
possession of unpublished health and safety studies on HDDs/HDFs is
required to submit copies of such studies to EPA, in accordance with
certain provisions of 40 CFR 716, no later than 90 days after the
person first manufactures or imports the chemical substance.
    Burden statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 31
hours per response. Burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related
materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities
and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized here:
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by
this ICR are companies that manufacture, import, or process chemical
substances or mixtures.
    Estimated total annual number of potential respondents: 1.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Estimated total annual average number of responses for each
respondent: 1.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 31 hours.
    Estimated total annual costs: $2,364. This includes an estimated
burden cost of $2,364 and an estimated cost of $0 for capital
investment or maintenance and operational costs.

III. Are there changes in the estimates from the last approval?

    There is a decrease of 1 hour in the total estimated respondent
burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by
OMB. This decrease reflects a correction in the ICR renewal which
eliminates the burden from trade name notification by processors
(included previously in error) and the increased CBI substantiation
requirements in the 2016 Lautenberg Act amendments to TSCA. This change
is an adjustment.

IV. What is the next step in the process for this ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another
Federal Register document pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to
announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit
additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or
the approval process, please contact the technical person listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    Dated: August 20, 2018.
Charlotte Bertrand,
Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical
Safety and Pollution Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2018-18752 Filed 8-28-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 84 (Monday, May 4, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20513-20514]
[FR Doc No: E9-10117]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59821; File No. SR-DTC-2009-05]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company;
Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Expanding the Scope
and Timing To Collect and Pass-Through Fees Owed by Participants to
American Depositary Receipt Agents

April 24, 2009.

I. Introduction

    On February 25, 2009, The Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed
rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (``Act'').\1\ On March 16, 2009, the Commission published
notice of the proposed rule change in the Federal Register to solicit
comments from interested persons.\2\ The Commission received no comment
letters in response to the proposed rule change. For the reasons
discussed below, the Commission is approving the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59540 (Mar. 9, 2009), 74
FR 11146.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

    Prior to this rule change, DTC collected custody fees, called
Depository Service Fees (``DSF''), from

participants once a year per CUSIP. DTC collected DSFs at the request
of the depositary bank and only for issues that have not paid a
dividend in the last 12 months. In addition to collecting the DSF, DTC
charged its participants three percent (3%) of the ADR agent fee, which
includes all fees under the ADR agreement, up to a maximum of $10,000
per CUSIP (``collection charge'') in order to cover costs incurred in
collecting and passing through DSFs.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Release Act No. 55306 (Feb. 15,
2007) 72 FR 8217 (Feb. 23, 2007) (File No. SR-DTC-2006-21)
(modifying the fees from the original filing).
    \4\ Dividend fees will continue to be collected through the
current rate adjustment process. The dividend fee is incorporated
into the final rate paid on the dividend by the agent on payment
date and covers their cost for servicing the dividend payment.
    \5\ ADR agreements are filed with the Commission and are usually
posted on the depositary bank's Web site.
    \6\ Fees may be collected multiple times in any given calendar
year depending on the terms of the ADR agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this rule filing, DTC will collect all allowable DSFs,
dividend fees,\4\ pass-through expenses, or other special fees as
governed by the ADR agreement.\5\ Additionally, DTC will increase the
maximum collection charge to $20,000 per CUSIP. In order to collect the
ADR agent fees, the ADR depositary banks will be required to notify DTC
thirty calendar days prior to the record date that a DSF or other fee
is due and payable.\6\ Moreover, DTC will require that the ADR
depositary bank submit an attestation that the specific fee(s) is (are)
allowable under the ADR agreement with the issuer. The attestation will
be in a form prescribed by DTC and may be changed periodically to
address operational issues. If a participant asks DTC to substantiate
the fee, DTC may require the ADR depositary to provide DTC with a copy
of the ADR agreement with the issuer and highlight the fee schedule.
DTC may at its discretion provide copies of the agreement to its
participants to substantiate the fee.
    As a result of this rule filing, the fee schedule for assessing ADR
agent fees will be revised. First, ADR agent fees will apply to all
fees permitted under the ADR agreement; the reference to ``issues not
paying periodic dividends'' would be deleted. Second, as discussed
above, the maximum ADR agent fee that DTC would collect would be
increased to $20,000 from $10,000.
    DTC expects to begin collecting ADR agent fees as expanded by this
rule filing in the first full month following the approval of this
filing.

III. Discussion

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to DTC. In particular, the Commission believes
the proposal is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act,\7\
which requires that the rules of a registered clearing agency are
designed to, among other things, remove impediments to the perfection
of the mechanism of a national system for the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions. For example,
further automating and centralizing information to effect DTC's ADR
agent fee collection process should eliminate invoice and check
processing for DTC participants and depositary banks because ADR
depositaries will no longer have to mail invoices and reminders to
participants holding ADR securities at DTC. In addition, DTC
participants will have a more transparent view into upcoming ADR agent
fees and a centralized source for information about the ADR agent fee
and the collection process. These refinements to the ADR fee collection
process should therefore remove impediments to the perfection of the
mechanism of a national system for the prompt and accurate clearance
and settlement of securities transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
in particular Section 17A of the Act \8\ and the rules and regulations
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\9\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-DTC-2009-05) be and
hereby is approved.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \10\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-10117 Filed 5-1-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) Considerations for Prohydrojasmon (PDJ), propyl-3-oxo-2-pentylcyclo-pentylacetate

                    Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0832
                             Date: August 23, 2013

Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if the EPA determines that the exemption is "safe." Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines "safe" to mean that "there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information." This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings but does not include occupational exposure. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, the EPA must take into account the factors set forth in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which require the EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance exemption, and to "ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue...." Additionally, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D) requires that the EPA consider "available information concerning the cumulative effects of [a particular pesticide's] . . . residues and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity."
The EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, the EPA determines the toxicity of pesticides. Second, the EPA examines exposure to the pesticide through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings.
I.  Summary of Petitioned-for Tolerance Exemption
In the Federal Register of January 9, 2013, (Vol. 78 FR 1798) (FRL-9374-2), EPA issued a notice pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance petition (PP 2F8056) by Fine Agrochemicals Ltd. (the Petitioner), on behalf of SciReg, Inc., 12733 Director's Loop, Woodbridge, VA, 22192. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of prohydrojasmon (PDJ), propyl-3-oxo-2-pentylcyclo-pentylacetate, in or on red apples and grapes. The notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by the Petitioner, which is available in Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0832 via http://www.regulations.gov.
II.  Toxicological Profile
Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, the EPA reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information on PDJ, and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability, as well as the relationship of this information to human risk. The EPA also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.
A.  Overview of PDJ

PDJ is a synthetically made plant growth regulator that is structurally similar and functionally identical to jasmonic acid (JA), a naturally occurring plant regulator present in all vascular plants. The jasmonates  of which JA is a member, is a group of plant hormones involved in multiple stages of plant development and defense, including the ability to stimulate fruit ripening (Ref. 1). The highest levels of naturally occurring JA are found in actively growing plant tissues such as leaves, flowers, and developing fruit (Ref. 1; Ref. 3), thus JA has always been a natural component of diets containing plant materials. To date, there have been no reported toxic effects associated with the consumption of JA in fruits and vegetables.

PDJ, a synthetic version of JA, is expected to behave in the same manner and have the same low toxicity profile as JA because it is structurally similar and functionally identical to naturally occurring JA. Studies submitted by the applicant in support of this exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, and reviewed by the Agency, indicate that PDJ is not acutely toxic. Specifically, no toxic endpoints were established, and no significant toxicological effects were observed in any of the acute toxicity studies. In addition, studies submitted indicate that PDJ is not genotoxic, has no subchronic toxic effects, and is not a developmental toxicant.

Based on the data submitted in support of this petition (summarized in Unit II. B., below) and the comprehensive risk assessment conducted by the Agency (Ref. 2, below), EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from aggregate exposures to PDJ, including the consumption of food treated with this active ingredient in accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices. EPA has made this determination for the following reasons: (1) available toxicology data indicate that the active ingredient is of low acute toxicity and is not a developmental toxicant, a mutagen, or toxic via repeat oral exposure, and (2) available information from the scientific literature indicates that humans are already exposed to the structurally similar and functionally identical naturally occurring compound, jasmonic acid (JA), a compound present in all vascular plants.

B.  Biochemical Pesticide Toxicology Data Requirements

All applicable mammalian toxicology data requirements supporting the request for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of PDJ in or on apple and grape have been fulfilled with data submitted by the petitioner. The following is a summary of EPA's review of the toxicity profile of this biochemical:

Acute Toxicity: Acute toxicity studies on the technical grade active ingredient (TGAI) for PDJ, containing 97.98% PDJ, confirm a low toxicity profile. The acute toxicity data show virtual nontoxicity for all routes of exposure. Therefore, it can be concluded that any dietary risks associated with this plant regulator would be negligible.

1.	The acute oral median lethal dose (LD50) in rats was greater than 5,000 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) bodyweight. There were no observed toxicological effects on the test subjects in the acute oral study submitted (MRID No. 47927825).  PDJ is classified as Toxicity Category IV for acute oral toxicity.

2.	The acute dermal LD50 in rats was greater than 2,000 mg/kg body weight (MRID 47927826). PDJ is classified as Toxicity Category III for acute dermal toxicity.

 3.	The acute inhalation median lethal concentration (LC50) was greater than 2.8 milligrams per liter (mg/L) in rats and showed no significant inhalation toxicity (MRID 47927827). PDJ is classified as Toxicity Category IV for acute inhalation toxicity.

 4.	A primary eye irritation study on rabbits indicates that PDJ is minimally irritating to the eye (MRID 47927828). PDJ is classified as Toxicity Category IV for primary eye irritation.

 5.	A skin irritation study on rabbits indicates that PDJ is not irritating to the skin (MRID 47927829). PDJ is classified as Toxicity Category IV for primary skin irritation.
 6.	Data indicate that PDJ is not a dermal sensitizer (MRID 47927830).

Mutagenicity: Two mutagenicity studies, using the TGAI of PDJ (97.98% PDJ) as the test substance, were performed. These studies are sufficient to confirm that there are no expected dietary or non-occupational risks of mutagenicity with regard to food use of PDJ.
1. A Bacterial Reverse Gene Mutation Test (MRID No. 47927833) investigating doses of test substance up to those that were cytotoxic, both with and without metabolic S9 activation, found no incidences of a 2-fold or greater increase in the number of revertants compared to the corresponding solvent control. Therefore, PDJ is considered to be non-mutagenic under the conditions of this assay.
2. An in vitro Mammalian Cell Chromosome Aberration Test (MRID No. 47927834) tested PDJ genotoxicity on Chinese hamster lung cells (CHL/IU) up to the cytotoxic dose level (80 micrograms per milliliter [ug/mL], based on reduced mitotic activity) without S9 activation, and up to the limit concentration of 5000 ug/mL with S9 activation. None of the test substance concentrations induced a significant increase in the incidence of cells with chromosomal abnormalities, either in the absence or presence of S9 activation. In both experiments, the fraction of cells with chromosomal aberrations was below 5%, indicating a negative response of the test substance. There was also no indication of a dose-response effect either with or without metabolic activation. All of the negative, solvent, and positive controls gave appropriate responses. Therefore, under the conditions of this assay, PDJ is considered to be non-mutagenic and does not cause chromosome aberrations.

Subchronic Toxicity: In a subchronic oral toxicity study using the TGAI of PDJ (97.98% PDJ) as the test substance, no clinically or toxicologically significant effects were found in any treatment group (MRID 47927831). Therefore, the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) for PDJ has been established as the highest test substance dose, 10,000 parts per million (ppm) (equivalent to 566 mg/kg bw/day for male test animals and 587 mg/kg bw/day for female test animals).  A lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) was not established, suggesting that the test animals could have tolerated a higher dose. In sum, the data submitted to the Agency indicate that PDJ has no subchronic toxicological effect.

Developmental Toxicity: In a developmental toxicity study, using the TGAI of PDJ (97.98% PDJ) as the test substance (MRID 47927832), there were no treatment-related effects found at necropsy in maternal animals nor were there effects on copra lutei, number of implanta - tions, sex ratio, fetal body weight, or preimplantation embryonic mortality. The Agency does not consider the temporary decrease in body weight or food intake observed in the 500 mg/kg bw/day test group to be an adverse effect, as this is likely due to the palatability of the food containing this high dose of test substance. Therefore, the Agency  establishes the NOAEL for this study as 500 mg/kg bw/day. A LOAEL was not identified for maternal effects, suggesting that the test animals could have tolerated a higher dose. No treatment-related developmental effects were found on external examination of the fetuses. Visceral examination showed a slight increase in the incidence of thymic remnants; however, the increase was within the range of the performing laboratories historical control data. Therefore, the Agency does not consider this a treatment-related effect. There was also a slight increase in the incidence of a 14[th] rib, which is a common variation in this strain of rat and is therefore not considered an adverse effect. This variation was not accompanied by an increased incidence of abnormal embryos, either on external, skeletal, or visceral examination, and did not appear at a higher than normal rate. Based on the study results, the developmental effects NOAEL for the study is the highest dose tested 500 mg/kg bw/day. A LOAEL was not identified for developmental effects, suggesting that the test animals could have tolerated a higher dose. In sum, the data submitted to the Agency indicate that PDJ is not a developmental toxicant.

III.  Aggregate Exposure

In examining aggregate exposure, FFDCA section 408 directs the EPA to consider available information concerning exposures from the pesticide residue in food and all other non-occupational exposures, including drinking water from ground water or surface water and exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings (residential and other indoor uses).

Food Exposure: Dietary exposure to residues of PDJ is expected to be insignificant, even in the event of exposure. In a worst case scenario, such as no degradation of the applied compound, PDJ residues consumed by a 70 kg person are four orders of magnitude below the No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL ) that was calculated for this compound (Ref. 2). Furthermore, dietary exposure to residues of PDJ via exposure to treated fruit or foliage is not expected to exist above background levels of naturally occurring JA (Ref. 2).

Drinking Water Exposure:  Exposure of humans to PDJ in drinking water is unlikely since products are labeled for application directly to terrestrial plants and because data demonstrate a soil half-life for this chemical from 1.6-2.3 hours, as well as rapid degradation in water (Ref. 2). Furthermore, the expected concentrations in surface water are well below (6 to 7 orders of magnitude) the maximum doses used in laboratory testing, where no toxic effects were seen (i.e., Acute Oral Toxicity LD50 > 5,000 mg/kg; Developmental Toxicity NOAEL > 500 mg/kg) (Ref. 2).

Other Non-occupational Exposure:
Non-occupational exposure is not expected because PDJ is not approved for residential uses. The active ingredient is applied directly to commodities and degrades rapidly.
IV.  Cumulative Effects from Substances with a Common Mechanism of Toxicity

Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the EPA consider "available information concerning the cumulative effects of [a particular pesticide's] . . . residues and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity."

The EPA has not found PDJ to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and PDJ does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, the EPA has assumed that PDJ does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. Following from this, the EPA concludes that there are no cumulative effects associated with PDJ that need to be considered. For information regarding the EPA's efforts to determine chemicals that have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see the EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

V.  Determination of Safety for the United States Population, Infants and Children

FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) provides that, in considering the establishment of a tolerance or tolerance exemption for a pesticide chemical residue, the EPA shall assess the available information about consumption patterns among infants and children, special susceptibility of infants and children to pesticide chemical residues, and the cumulative effects on infants and children of the residues and other substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. In addition, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) provides that the EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure, unless the EPA determines that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. In applying this provision, the EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional or no safety factor when reliable data are available to support a different additional or no safety factor.

Because there are no threshold effects associated with this biochemical, an additional margin of safety for infants and children is not necessary.

EPA has determined that there are no foreseeable dietary risks to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from the use of PDJ as a pesticide (plant growth regulator) on apple and grape, when label instructions and good agricultural practices are followed. The available data and information indicate that the chemical (1) is of low toxicity and not a developmental toxicant, and (2) is structurally similar and functionally identical to jasmonic acid (JA), a compound naturally occurring in the human diet. When compared to the amount of JA that is likely already consumed in the human diet, dietary exposure from pesticidal use of PDJ is not anticipated to significantly increase overall dietary exposure of infants and children.

Therefore, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to the residues of PDJ when it is used as labeled and in accordance with good agricultural practices. Such exposure includes all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information. EPA has arrived at this conclusion because the data and information available on PDJ do not demonstrate significant toxic potential to mammals, including infants and children.

VI.  Conclusions
EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of PDJ. Therefore, an exemption is established for residues of the biochemical pesticide PDJ in or on apple and grape when used as a plant growth regulator pre-harvest and in accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices.

VII.  References

   1.    Creelman, R.A. and J.E. Mullet (1995) Jasmonic acid distribution and action in
      plants: Regulation during development and response to biotic and abiotic stress. Proceedings of the National Academies of Science, 92: 4114-4119.

   2.    EPA (2013) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Risk Assessment:
Request for new registration for prohydrojasmon technical and product registration Section 3 for BLUSH 5.25% ai with tolerance exemption. May 12, 2013.

3.   Mason, H.S., DeWald, D.B., Creelman, R.A., Mullet J.E. (1992) Coregulation of
      Soybean and Vegetative Storage Protein Gene Expression by Methyl Jasmonate and Soluble Sugars. Plant Physiology, 98: 859-867.


[Federal Register: January 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 12)]
[Notices]
[Page 3086-3088]
[DOCID:fr19ja06-76]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP03-33-002]

Wyckoff Gas Storage Company, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Amended Wyckoff Gas Storage
Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

January 10, 2006.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Amended Wyckoff Gas Storage
Project involving construction and operation of facilities by Wyckoff
Gas Storage Company, LLC (Wyckoff) in Steuben County, New York.\1\ The
FERC Staff issued a notice of intent to prepare an EA on the original
Wyckoff Gas Storage Project on February 10, 2003. The EA was issued for
public comment on August 26, 2003. The certificate order was issued on
October 6, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Wyckoff's application was filed with the Commission under
Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of the Commission's
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amended project requests authorization to: (1) Relocate certain
of the approved facilities at its certificated storage field; (2)
downsize certain of the approved facilities; (3) permit phasing of the
construction of certain of the approved facilities; and (4) confirm the
previously approved maximum reservoir pressure for the field. This EA
will be used by the Commission in its decision-making process to
determine whether the amended project is in the public convenience and
necessity.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted
by a pipeline company representative about the acquisition of an
easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities.
The pipeline company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable
agreement. However, if the project is approved by the Commission, that
approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if
easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline
company could initiate condemnation proceedings in accordance with
state law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' was attached to the
project notice Wyckoff provided to landowners. This fact sheet
addresses a number of

typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how
to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is available for
viewing on the FERC Internet website (http://www.ferc.gov).

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Wyckoff's current authorization is to construct and operate a
natural gas storage facility in two nearly depleted reservoirs in
Steuben County, New York, capable of storing up to 6 billion cubic feet
of natural gas (CP03-33-000). Wyckoff is asking for authorization to:
    1. Relocate the compressor station about 900 feet to the southern
end of the Wyckoff parcel.
    2. Construct 1.2 miles of 6-inch-diameter lateral called the Chase
Lateral; 0.5 mile of 6-inch-diameter lateral called the Banks Lateral;
and 0.7 mile 8-inch-diameter lateral called the Banks/Cornell Lateral.
    3. Install two 2,370 horsepower (hp) units for a total of 4,740 hp
and one dehydration unit, instead of two 4,735 hp compressor units and
two dehydration units. Wyckoff intends to install the remaining 4,735
hp of approved compression and the additional dehydration unit within a
few years.
    4. Defer the construction of the 7.7-mile southern pipeline to
Dominion Transmission, Inc. (Dominion) Interconnect for three years.
Wyckoff would assume ownership of National Fuel Gas Supply
Corporation's (National Fuel) Line Z-67 being abandoned by National
Fuel, and would continue Line Z-67 in operation for transporting gas
between the storage field and National Fuel's system.
    5. Directionally drill six new injection/withdrawal wells rather
than vertically drilling each well.
    6. Reduce the diameter of the 3.6-mile northern pipeline, the 0.07
mile of pipeline interconnection with Tennessee Gas Pipe Line Company,
and the 0.15 mile of pipeline interconnection with Columbia Gas
Transmission Corporation from 20-inch-diameter to 16-inch-diameter.
    7. Phase facilities: Phase I would include 3 existing wells to be
converted to injection/withdrawal wells, the six new injection/
withdrawal wells and the observation wells, the associated lateral
piping, the initial 4,740 hp of compression, the single dehydration
unit and the 3.6-mile northern 16 inch-diameter pipeline.
    8. Phase II would consist of the additional 4,735 hp compression,
the additional dehydration unit, and the southern pipeline consisting
of 7.7 miles of 20-inch-diameter southern pipeline to the point of
interconnection with pipeline facilities operated by Dominion.
    Wyckoff would also like confirmation that the authorized maximum
reservoir pressure of 1,790 pounds per square inch is the maximum
authorized wellhead pressure for the Wyckoff facility as stated in the
Commission's October 6, 2003 Order.
    There are no nonjurisdictional facilities identified for the
project.
    The location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of all appendices, other
than Appendix 1 (maps), are available on the Commission's website at
the ``eLibrary'' link or from the Commission's Public Reference
Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call (202)
502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary refer to the
last page of this notice. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction affecting the amended facilities that include the well
laterals, injection withdrawal wells, and compressor station would
require about 21.1 acres of land. Following construction, about 13.6
acres would be maintained as new permanent right-of-way and aboveground
facility sites. The remaining 7.5 acres of land would be restored and
allowed to revert to its former use.

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 whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. 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 address in the
EA. All comments received are considered during the preparation of the
EA. State and local government representatives are encouraged to notify
their constituents of this proposed action and encourage them to
comment on their areas of concern.
    In the EA we \3\ will discuss impacts that could occur as a result
of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these
general headings:

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

 Soils
 Land use
 Water resources, fisheries, and wetlands
 Cultural resources
 Vegetation and wildlife
 Air quality and noise
 Endangered and threatened species
    We will not discuss impacts to the following resource areas since
they are not changed from the original application or would not be
affected by the proposed facilities.
 Geology
 Hazardous waste
 Public safety
    We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the proposed project
or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen
or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    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.

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 Wyckoff. This preliminary
list of issues may be changed based on your comments and our analysis.
     The compressor station would be moved about 900 feet south
of the original location. Two nearby residences and one church would be
impacted by noise from the new compressor station (the same impacted by
the original project).
     About 1.7 miles of new 6-inch-diameter lateral pipeline
and about 0.6 mile of 8-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed.
     Eight intermittent streams would be crossed by the new
laterals.
     Seven wetlands would be affected by the amended lateral
pipeline changes affecting about 0.7 acre.

     Minor route changes have been proposed for the northern
pipeline route between about milepost (MP) 1.19 and MP 1.58 and along
the southern pipeline route.
     Endangered species may be affected by the project's
modifications.
     The land use impacts would be changed by the amended
facilities.
     New York Department of Agriculture and Markets has
commented that topsoil stripping and stockpiling problems in early
spring through the spring thaw would destroy the topsoil and hamper
effective sediment and runoff controls.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the project. By becoming a commentor, your
concerns will be addressed in the EA and considered by the Commission.
You should focus on the potential environmental effects of the
proposal, alternatives to the proposal (including alternative
locations/routes), and measures to avoid or lessen environmental
impact. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be.
Please carefully follow these instructions to ensure that your comments
are received in time and properly recorded:
     Send an original and two copies of your letter to: Magalie
R. Salas, 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.
     Reference Docket No. CP03-33-002.
     Mail your comments so that they will be received in
Washington, DC on or before February 9, 2006.
    Please note that we are continuing to experience delays in mail
deliveries from the U.S. Postal Service. As a result, we will include
all comments that we receive within a reasonable time frame in our
environmental analysis of this project. However, the Commission
strongly encourages electronic filing of any comments or interventions
or protests to this proceeding. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the
instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under

the ``e-Filing'' link and the link to the User's Guide. Before you can
file comments you will need to create a free account which can be
created on-line.
    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 3). 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 official party to the proceeding, or ``intervenor.'' To
become an intervenor you must file a motion to intervene according to
Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR
385.214). Intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the
Commission's decision. Motions to Intervene should be electronically
submitted using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov.

Persons without Internet access should send an original and 14 copies
of their motion to the Secretary of the Commission at the address
indicated previously. Persons filing Motions to Intervene on or before
the comment deadline indicated above must send a copy of the motion to
the Applicant. All filings, including late interventions, submitted
after the comment deadline must be served on the Applicant and all
other intervenors identified on the Commission's service list for this
proceeding. Persons on the service list with e-mail addresses may be
served electronically; others must be served a hard copy of the filing.
    Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be
granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they
have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be
adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor
status to have your environmental comments considered.

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 landowners who are
potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily
for project purposes, or who own homes within distances defined in the
Commission's regulations of certain aboveground facilities. By this
notice we are also asking governmental agencies, especially those in
Appendix 2, to express their interest in becoming cooperating agencies
for the preparation of the EA.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC 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
docket number excluding the last three digits 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 for TTY,

contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission 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.

    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx
 along with other related information.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-495 Filed 1-18-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 247 (Thursday, December 27, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66646-66647]
[FR Doc No: 2018-28114]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

Proposed Modification of the Miami, FL, Class B Airspace; and the
Fort Lauderdale, FL, Class C Airspace Areas; Public Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a fact-finding informal airspace meeting
regarding a plan to modify the Miami, FL, Class B Airspace, and the
Fort Lauderdale, FL, Class C Airspace areas. The purpose of the meeting
is to provide interested parties an opportunity to present views,
recommendations, and comments on any proposed change to the airspace.
All comments received during the meeting will be considered prior to
any revision or issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Wednesday, February 27, 2019, from
3:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Comments must be received on or before March 29,
2019.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the following location: Broward
College, South Campus Building 69, Room 133, 7200 Pines Blvd., Pembroke
Pines, FL 33024.
    Comments: Send comments on the proposal, in triplicate, to: Ryan
Almasy, Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Area, Air
Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636,
Atlanta, GA, 30320; or via email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Hildebidle, Manager, Miami ATCT/
TRACON, 6400 NW 22nd St., Miami, FL 33122. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Meeting Procedures

    (a) The meeting will be informal in nature and will be conducted by
one or more representatives of the FAA Eastern Service Area. A
representative from the FAA will present a briefing on the planned
airspace modifications. Each participant will be given and opportunity
to deliver comments or make a presentation, although a time limit may
be imposed to accommodate closing times. Only comments concerning the
plan to modify the Miami, FL, Class B Airspace, and the Fort
Lauderdale, FL, Class C Airspace areas will be accepted.
    (b) The meeting will be open to all persons on a space-available
basis. There will be no admission fee or other charge to attend and
participate.
    (c) Any person wishing to make a presentation will be asked to sign
in so those time frames can be established. This will permit the panel
to allocate an appropriate amount of time for each presenter. This
meeting will not be adjourned until everyone on the list has had an
opportunity to address the panel. This meeting may be adjourned at any
time if all persons present have had an opportunity to speak.
    (d) Position papers or other handout material relating to the
substance of the meeting will be accepted. Participants submitting
handout materials should present an original and two copies to the
presiding officer. There should be an adequate number of copies for
distribution to all participants.
    (e) This meeting will not be formally recorded. However, a summary
of the comments made at the meeting will be filed in the docket.
    Information gathered through this meeting will assist the FAA in
drafting a Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). The public will be
afforded the opportunity to comment on any NPRM published on this
matter.

Agenda for the Meeting

--Sign-in
--Presentation of Meeting Procedures
--Informal Presentation of the Planned Airspace Modifications
--Public Presentations and Discussions
--Closing Comments

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

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 17, 2018.
Scott M. Rosenbloom,
Acting Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
[FR Doc. 2018-28114 Filed 12-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 28, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 124)]
[Notices]
[Page 35451]
[DOCID:fr28jn07-44]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-490-000]

Great Lakes Gas Transmission, Limited Partnership; Notice of
Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

June 20, 2007.
    Take notice that on June 15, 2007, Great Lakes Gas Transmission
Limited Partnership (Great Lakes) tendered for filing as part of its
FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed
on Appendix A to the filing, to become effective August 1, 2007.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing 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). 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-12476 Filed 6-27-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 27 (Wednesday, February 9, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7412-7413]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02733]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 141

[EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0114; FRL-8543-O3-OW]

Notice of Public Meeting: Environmental Justice Considerations
for the Development of the Proposed Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances
(PFAS) National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is hosting two
identical public meetings to discuss and solicit input on environmental
justice considerations related to the development of the proposed per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) national primary drinking water
regulation (NPDWR) under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). In the
context of developing this proposed regulation, environmental justice
considerations include the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of
all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with
respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of
environmental laws, regulations, and policies with a particular focus
on unique challenges faced by communities disproportionately burdened
by environmental harms and risks. EPA is holding these meetings to
share information and provide an opportunity for communities to offer
input on the development of the proposed PFAS NPDWR. Information on how
to register and request to speak during one of the meetings is detailed
in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this announcement.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 20, 2022. The two
identical public meetings will be held on March 2, 2022 (1 p.m. to 4
p.m., eastern time) and April 5, 2022 (5 p.m. to 8 p.m., eastern time).
The public meetings will be held in an online-only format.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OW-2022-0114, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0114 for this action. Comments received may be
posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any
personal information provided. For detailed instructions on sending
comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the
``Public Participation'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this announcement.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical inquiries, contact
Ashley Greene, Standards and Risk Management Division, Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water (MC 4607M), Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460 at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected]. For more information about the proposed PFAS
NPDWR, visit: https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

    These online meetings will be open to the public and EPA encourages
input and will provide opportunities for public engagement.

A. Written Comments

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No, EPA-HQ-OW-2022-
0114 at https://www.regulations.gov; see instructions identified in the
ADDRESSES section of this announcement. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from the docket. The EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

B. Participation in Public Meeting

    Registration: Individuals planning to participate in either of the
online public meetings must register at https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas no later than March 1, 2022, for the
March 2, 2022 meeting and April 4, 2022, for the April 5, 2022 meeting.
Individuals are also invited to speak during the meetings. Those
interested in speaking can sign-up to make brief verbal remarks as a
part of their registration. EPA will do its best to include all those
interested in attending and requesting verbal input, but may have to
limit attendance due to web conferencing size or limit verbal remarks
due to meeting time limitations; therefore, EPA urges people to
register early. Meeting information and web conferencing meeting
details, including telephone call-in information, will be emailed to
registered participants in advance of each of the meetings. If you have
any difficulty registering or have additional questions or comments
about the public meeting, please email
[email protected].
    Special Accommodations: For information on electronic access or
accommodations for individuals with disabilities or other requested
assistance (e.g., language translation), please contact Ashley Greene
at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at [email protected]. Please allow at
least five business days prior to each of the meetings to give EPA time
to process your request.

II. The Proposed PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation

    Under SDWA, EPA sets public health goals and enforceable standards
for drinking water quality. On March 3, 2021, EPA published a final
determination (https://www.epa.gov/ccl/regulatory-determination-4) to
regulate perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid
(PFOS) in drinking water. EPA is currently developing a proposed NPDWR
for PFOA and PFOS. EPA is also evaluating additional PFAS and assessing
the available science to consider regulations for groups of PFAS.
NPDWRs are legally

enforceable maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) or treatment techniques
that apply to public water systems. MCLs and treatment techniques
protect public health by limiting the levels of contaminants in
drinking water.
    In October 2021, EPA released the PFAS Strategic Roadmap (https://www.epa.gov/pfas/pfas-strategic-roadmap-epas-commitments-action-2021-2024) laying out an overall approach to addressing PFAS. Establishing
an NPDWR for PFOA and PFOS is a key action in the Roadmap. EPA expects
to issue a proposed regulation in fall 2022 (before the agency's
statutory deadline of March 2023). EPA anticipates issuing a final
regulation in fall 2023 after considering public comments on the
proposal.

Jennifer L. McLain,
Director, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.
[FR Doc. 2022-02733 Filed 2-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P