composition in maternal milk may provide an explanation for effects
seen in the pups but do not constitute an adverse effect independent of
effects in the pups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The study does not make clear whether it was reporting
decrements in body weight gain (the amount of weight gained between
designated time periods) or absolute body weight. Body weight is
generally regarded as the more important measure because decrements
in body weight gain, which is a calculated value and may be
misleading, may occur even though the pup is otherwise within normal
body weight levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, to the extent NRDC's petition argues that the Sturtz study
showed the 2,4-D tolerances to be unsafe, that claim is denied.

B. Exposure

    1. Aggregate exposures and risk--residential use--a. NRDC claims.
In its petition, NRDC restates its comments submitted in 2002 and 2004
concerning the Agency's aggregate assessment (Ref. 1 at 11). In its
comments submitted in 2002 and 2004, NRDC claims that EPA failed to
conduct adequate aggregate risk assessment due to outstanding data gaps
and missing information, and that EPA did not consider exposure through
drift, migration of contaminated soil, or residential track-in
exposures. (Refs. 23 and 24). In its comments, NRDC cites two studies
(Nishioka (1996 and 2001)) in support of these comments that pertain to
track-in exposures. (Refs. 81 and 82).
    b. Public comments. There were no public comments received on this
issue.
    c. Agency response. In addition to the generalized claims regarding
inadequate assessment of aggregate exposure in the RED risk assessment,
NRDC does specifically allege that ``[t]he use of 2,4-D in and around
the home could itself exceed appropriate risk levels if properly
calculated.'' (Ref. 24 at 28). If the evidence adduced by NRDC
substantiates this point--the Nishioka studies (1996 and 2001)--this
claim would be sufficient grounds for revocation of 2,4-D tolerances.
    In response to NRDC's claims regarding the level of 2,4-D exposure
from residential use, the Agency reviewed both Nishioka studies (1996
and 2001) to ascertain if the risk assessment completed for 2,4-D was
protective. (Ref. 83 at 13).
    Residential exposure to 2,4-D results from its use on turf in
residential environments. In the RED risk assessment this use pattern
was evaluated using a screening level methodology that considers direct
contact by toddlers with treated turf. Toddlers are considered the most
highly exposed group in the population to turf uses because their
behavior patterns (e.g., playing on turf, mouthing of hands and other
objects) lead to both increased dermal and non-dietary ingestion
exposures. The screening methodology assumes that these behaviors co-
occur and also aggregates exposures from the pesticide in food and
water. For 2,4-D, this screening methodology did not indicate a risk of
concern even taking into account that the RED risk

assessment retained the full 10X FQPA safety factor due to missing data
on pre- and post-natal toxicity.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In 2011, EPA removed the FQPA safety factor because the data
gaps were filled by submission of the extended one-generation rat
reproduction study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dusts are thought by some to possibly contribute more than
negligible levels to potential exposures in indoor environments but a
methodology has not been developed which definitively establishes a
link between levels in dust with a clearly defined exposure pathway.
This construct was discussed extensively at a 2009 meeting of the FIFRA
SAP related to the revisions of the EPA's Standard Operating Procedures
for Residential Exposure Assessment. (Ref. 84). The conclusions of that
panel were that insufficient information is currently available to
definitively link residues in dusts to specific exposure pathways.
Nonetheless, to examine whether 2,4-D contamination of indoor dust
might significantly alter the RED risk assessment, EPA considered how
the indoor residue values in the Nishioka studies would affect the risk
assessment. EPA assumed for screening purposes that toddlers consume
100 mg/day of dust containing the highest 2,4-D concentration found in
Nishioka studies (67 micrograms/gram ([mu]g/g)). The 2,4-D levels in
dust in the Nishioka studies were generally much lower than 67 [mu]g/g
(e.g., 1996 maximum is 4.85 [mu]g/g, and 2001 median is 10 [mu]g/g).
The value of 100 mg/day for dust consumption is drawn from the EPA's
Child Specific Exposure Factors Handbook (Ref. 85), and is the same
value assumed for soil consumption. This value was also used in the
Nishioka studies. Additional conservatisms in this screening assessment
are the assumptions that (1) exposures from dust residues are assumed
despite the uncertainties noted in the 2009 FIFRA SAP Report; and (2)
2,4-D residues do not decline over time even though 2,4-D is known to
dissipate quickly. (Ref. 84 at 26 and Ref. 86). Based on these
assumptions, margins of exposure range from approximately 32,000 to
150,000 depending upon whether the duration of exposure considered is
acute-, short- or intermediate-term. (Ref. 30 at 66). As such, use of
this highest dust concentration value would not impact the findings of
the current risk assessment. If it is further assumed that dusts
persist in impacted residences in such a way that ingestion of the
highest concentration would occur in a chronic exposure pattern and
that the highest noted concentration in dust would never dissipate,
which is counter-intuitive given how 2,4-D is used and its known rapid
dissipation characteristics, risks are still not of concern. In such
situations, dust would be the predominant source for chronic exposures
but margins of exposure still would exceed 11,000 based on the chronic
dietary POD (5 mg/kg/day). (Ref. 30 at 66). It should also be noted
that Nishioka (1996) indicated that such exposures could be chronic in
nature after a single application of 2,4-D, but this is viewed by EPA
as unlikely due to a lack of empirical information to support such a
supposition. Nishioka (1996) projected that 2,4-D would be found in
residential carpet dust up to 1 year later based on short-term track-in
sampling. However, the value estimated by Nishioka (0.5 [mu]g/g) is two
orders of magnitude less than the value used in the extremely
conservative assessments described above. Given that these unrealistic
and high-end assumptions yield MOEs greater than 10,000, EPA concludes
that the cited data do not support NRDC's allegation that ``[t]he use
of 2,4-D in and around the home could itself exceed appropriate risk
levels if properly calculated.'' To the contrary, even assessing
exposure using unrealistic, high-end values for 2,4-D, levels in dust
indicates that residential dust exposures to 2,4-D are a relatively
minor exposure. NRDC's claim regarding track-in exposures is denied.
    Finally, it should be noted that the Agency is currently in the
process of evaluating the state of the science related to the exposure
pathways from indoor dust as illustrated by the SAP review of
residential methods and an additional review related to exposures from
volatilization. Additionally, EPA is developing more definitive methods
focused on addressing and characterizing potential exposures from
chemical trespass. These efforts were recently described in a 2011
meeting of the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee. (Ref. 87). Once
final, any potential modifications to methods impacting residential
risk assessment will be accounted for in the upcoming registration
review process for 2,4-D.
    2. Exposure through maternal milk-- a. NRDC claims. NRDC asserts
that EPA failed to include any lactational exposure in its aggregate
risk assessment, although it was aware of research demonstrating the
potential exposure to 2,4-D from maternal milk. (Ref. 1 at 11). NRDC
cites several studies involving lactational exposure to show potential
effects of 2,4-D on the brain of neonatal rats exposed lactationally.
(Id.). The cited studies provide an assessment of the levels of 2,4-D
attained in the milk of the dams and in the plasma and brain of the
pups. NRDC also cites studies that it claims ``confirm the lactational
exposure and identify adverse effects in the offspring.'' (Id.)
    b. Public comments. In its comments, the Industry Task Force
disputes NRDC's allegation that EPA failed to address 2,4-D exposure
from maternal milk. (Ref. 26 at 24-27). The Task Force comments that
EPA was aware, when conducting the aggregate risk assessment, that 2,4-
D may be present in maternal milk because of the results of animal
feeding studies using exaggerated doses of 2,4-D. Further, the Task
Force argues that NRDC's claim that EPA failed to include any
lactational exposure in its aggregate risk assessment is not correct.
According to the Task Force, the Agency used half the limit of
detection (LOD) for milk value in its 2005 risk assessment because no
detectable residues were found in milk samples over several years of
Pesticide Data Program (PDP) monitoring. Thus, the Task Force asserts
that EPA assumed that 2,4-D would be present in milk at 0.004 ppm for
both acute and chronic exposure (despite it being non-detectable in PDP
sampling). (Id. at 26).
    The Task Force states that large doses of 2,4-D administered in the
Sturtz et al (2000) study cited by NRDC render the study uninformative
for human health risk assessment. (Id. at 24). The Task Force cites
biomonitoring data from farm families to support its contention that
EPA's exposure estimates are reasonable. (Id. at 25).
    c. EPA's response. Initially, EPA would note that the studies NRDC
cited to support its claim that 2,4-D exposure through maternal milk
causes adverse effects were considered together with other studies
cited by NRDC pertaining to toxicity issues. See Unit VII.A. above.
    With regard to human exposure to 2,4-D through maternal milk, NRDC
alleges that such exposure occurs and was ignored by EPA despite the
fact that it could result in ``potentially significant exposures.'' As
discussed in Unit VII.A.1.c., this ground for objection is denied
because (1) the standard for revocation is that the tolerance is unsafe
not that there are ``potentially significant exposures'' that should be
included in an aggregate assessment; and (2) NRDC presents no evidence
to support its assertion that potentially significant exposures were
excluded from EPA's risk assessment. Accordingly, NRDC's claim that the
2,4-D tolerance should be revoked due to exposure to 2,4-D in human
breast milk is denied due to a failure to allege facts sufficient to
meet the statutory standard for revocation and a failure to support the
allegations that are made.

    Despite the inadequacy of petitioners' claim regarding 2,4-D
exposure in human breast milk, EPA has examined the evidence cited by
petitioners for the purpose of evaluating whether the evidence raises
sufficient grounds for concern regarding 2,4-D that EPA should consider
initiating action that might lead to revocation of the 2,4-D
tolerances.
    NRDC is incorrect in asserting that EPA assumed that humans are not
exposed to 2,4-D through maternal milk. To the contrary, EPA assumed,
in its RED risk assessment, that all milk--whether animal or human--
contained 2,4-D at levels that may be present in cow's milk. This is an
extremely conservative assumption as it pertains to human breast milk.
    Residues in various food forms of cow's milk (e.g., milk fat,
nonfat milk solids, etc.) have been accounted for in the dietary
exposure assessment based on monitoring data from the USDA Pesticide
Data Program (PDP). There were no detections of 2,4-D in any samples,
so EPA assumed that all milk contains half the detection limit for 2,4-
D. (Ref. 19 at 47). This is a very conservative assumption as it
pertains to human breast milk because 2,4-D levels in human breast milk
are expected to be significantly lower than residues in cow's milk.
Exposure of dairy cattle to pesticides are generally significantly
higher than humans as residues in cows' key feed items, such as grass
forage, are generally much higher than in human foods. As to 2,4-D,
this is certainly the case given that the 2,4-D tolerances for grass
(hay) and grass (forage) are 300 and 360 ppm, respectively, while 2,4-D
tolerances for various human foods are all much lower--in the single
digits or less than 1 ppm (40 CFR 180.142). Grass hay and forage can
constitute 60 percent of the diets of beef and dairy cattle. (Ref. 88).
    Accordingly, EPA concludes that NRDC's claim regarding exposure to
2,4-D through human breast milk does not raise sufficient grounds for
concern that EPA should consider initiating action that might lead to
revocation of the 2,4-D tolerances.
    3. Dermal absorption--a. NRDC claims. NRDC asserts that in the
final risk assessment, the dermal absorption factor used by EPA (10
percent) was too low. Specifically, NRDC claims that the EPA failed to
address the possibility of enhanced dermal absorption of 2,4-D due to
the potentially interacting factors of alcohol consumption and
application of sunscreen, and/or the insect repellent DEET. (Ref. 1 at
12; Ref. 22 at 1). In its exposure comments on the RED, which NRDC
incorporates in its petition, NRDC argued that EPA should increase its
dermal absorption factor to at least 14 percent based on a human dermal
absorption study by Moody (1992). (Ref. 24 at 16 and Ref. 89). NRDC
claimed that such an adjustment of the dermal absorption factor would
result in post-application exposures for toddlers exceeding the LOC.
(Ref. 24 at 16). In addition, NRDC claims that the Agency did not
sufficiently address that using rubber gloves when applying 2,4-D does
not afford adequate dermal protection and the effect of 2,4-D soaking
into clothing. (Ref. 1 at 13).
    b. Public comments. In its comments, the Task Force disagrees with
NRDC's allegation regarding enhanced dermal absorption due to the
interacting factors of alcohol consumption, sunscreen, and DEET. The
Task Force argues that the study on which EPA relied to estimate dermal
absorption, Feldmann and Maibach (1974), used ``extreme'' conditions.
(Ref. 26 at 28 and Ref. 90). According to the Task Force, in this study
2,4-D was applied with acetone which denatures skin and allows for
increased absorption. Additionally, the Task Force noted that the skin
was not protected and not washed for 24 hours to allow maximum
absorption. That study showed absorption of 5.8 percent. The Task Force
also cites a recent article, Ross (2005), which summarized numerous
dermal absorption studies with 2,4-D. (Ref. 91). According to the Task
Force, this study concluded that the available studies showed
remarkable agreement and strongly supported the conclusion in the
Fledmann and Maibach study.
    The Task Force also commented on other issues related to dermal
exposure such as the use of rubber gloves by agricultural workers.
Those comments are not relevant to the FFDCA portion of NRDC's petition
and are thus addressed elsewhere.
    c. EPA's response. For the purposes of responding to the portion of
NRDC's petition that requests EPA to revoke tolerances, EPA will
respond to issues related to residential exposure here. Concerns about
occupational exposures will be addressed elsewhere.
    Unlike most of NRDC's other claims, as to dermal absorption, NRDC
alleges grounds that if substantiated would provide grounds for
revoking the 2,4-D tolerances. As summarized above, NRDC alleges that
EPA has understated dermal absorption and adjustment of dermal
absorption factor to the degree supported by Moody (1992) would show a
risk of concern (i.e., a lack of safety). (Ref. 24 at 16). In the
petition, NRDC's focus shifts from the Moody study to a series of in
vitro studies investigating the effect of the use of sunscreen and
alcohol on 2,4-D dermal absorption. NRDC argues that these studies show
that EPA has underestimated dermal absorption. The various combinations
of in vitro results appear to indicate that dermal absorption was
enhanced by up to a factor of about 2.5 while most tested scenarios
indicate a factor of 2 or less. (Refs. 92,93,94 and 95). One study used
human skin and the results suggest a factor of up to 3 depending upon
sunscreen ingredient tested. (Ref. 92). NRDC also claims that use of
the pesticide Deet increases dermal absorption of 2,4-D. Here, NRDC
turns back to the Moody study but that study actually concluded that
``Deet had no significant effect on total cumulative palmar
permeability to this herbicide [2,4-D].'' (Ref. 89 at 245).
    EPA believes that its use of a 10 percent dermal absorption value
for 2,4-D is protective. EPA's conclusion is supported by an extensive
set of high quality human research results. Ross (2005) notes that
``the degree of uncertainty and variability associated with human
dermal absorption for 2,4-D is better defined than for virtually any
other pesticide * * *.'' (Ref. 91 at 84). EPA principally relied on an
in vivo human study which showed average human dermal absorption at 5.8
percent. (Ref. 90). EPA also considered four other in vivo human
studies. (Refs. 89, 96,97 and 98). These studies involved 8 separate
trials using a total of 34 participants and had an average dermal
absorption value of 5.7 percent. (Ref. 91 at 84, Table 2) To account
for potential variability EPA chose a value of 10 percent.
    There are several factors that support reliance on these data and
demonstrate the reasonableness of EPA's choice of a 10 percent dermal
absorption factor. First, the data relied upon by EPA are from in vivo
human studies. NRDC, with one exception, has cited only to in vitro
data. EPA generally does not rely on in vitro dermal absorption data
without corroboration from in vivo testing. The critical limitations
with in vitro dermal absorption testing, such as the lack of an intact
vasculature, make it an uncertain guide for risk assessment. The Moody
study (1992) did involve in vivo human testing but the results of this
study were similar to the higher values seen in the human in vivo
studies considered by EPA. In fact, if the Moody study results from the
trial combining 2,4-D and DEET are included in the overall average of
dermal absorption from the human studies, the average absorption only
increases from 5.7 percent to 6.4 percent. (Ref. 30). Second, the
studies considered by EPA involved exposure

conditions that varied based on application site (forearms, hands),
topical dose rates (1.7 to 1,100 [mu]g/cm\2\), form (acid or salt),
application media (water, ethanol, acetone), and exposure time. As
noted, the overall average dermal absorption value for all of these
data combined (N=34), regardless of design, was 5.7 percent.
Examination of these variables, particularly the use of different
application vehicles and different anatomical sites, is likely to have
captured much of the variability measured in the sunscreen and alcohol
in vitro studies. On this latter point, it is worth noting that NRDC
placed particular emphasis on the potential additive effect of
sunscreen and alcohol. Yet, the relevant study on this point found that
the effect from both sunscreen and alcohol to be no higher than a
factor of 2.9 and that was only with an extremely high alcohol dose.
(Ref. 92). At the lowest alcohol dose tested in the study, the
researchers actually concluded that alcohol had an inhibitory effect on
dermal absorption. This low dose, when converted to human consumption
amounts, is the equivalent of 7 ounces of 100 proof liquor for women
and just slightly less than 9 ounces for men. Third, the data
considered by EPA was developed by different researchers at different
laboratories. The reproducibility of results across these studies gives
them enhanced reliability. As Ross (2005) notes: ``Multiple human
studies conducted on the forearm and hand provide remarkably consistent
results, especially considering the studies were performed years apart
in time, at different laboratories by different personnel on totally
different human subjects.'' (Ref. 91 at 84). On the other hand, the in
vitro studies cited by NRDC all were conducted by the same group of
researchers. Finally, the value chosen by EPA for dermal absorption was
nearly twice the average value seen in human testing.
    Providing further support for the reasonableness of EPA's
assumption on dermal absorption are exposure monitoring studies
(including epidemiological analyses, environmental measurements, and
methodological analyses) cited by NRDC and commenters. (Ref. 30 at 65-
69). In fact, many of these studies report exposure levels that are
similar to or far below exposures estimated by EPA. For example, NRDC
cited results from Lerda (1991), (Ref. 99), prior to the RED, which are
similar to those predicted in the 2005 EPA risk assessment for
applicators wearing normal work clothing. Current labels require the
use of protective clothing and gloves. NRDC also cited median urinary
values in children reported by Morgan (2008), (Ref. 100), which are
lower than those used to establish risk estimates in the 2005 risk
assessment. Other data cited in comments, such as Alexander (2007),
(Ref. 101), cited by the 2,4-D Task Force, (Ref. 26 at 30), indicate
values much lower than values that would reflect a risk concern for
both applicators and their family members according to the 2005
assessment. (Ref. 19 at 57-60).
    Accordingly, NRDC's claim regarding dermal absorption is denied.
    EPA is currently involved in processes to refine many of its
exposure assessment inputs (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/handler-exposure-data.html) and to establish better methods for the
consideration of epidemiological research into the regulatory process.
(See Ref. 102). The Agency is also re-evaluating pesticide risks on a
cyclical basis under its registration review process. Given these two
efforts, the Agency will further evaluate research related to 2,4-D
during registration review. The Agency has also been actively
participating in epidemiological research efforts such as the
Agricultural Health Study and, as part of this process, will pursue
additional information related to 2,4-D and the potential for health
effects in potentially exposed populations.

C. Additional Issues Raised in Public Comments

    Some comments raised issues beyond the scope of NRDC's petition.
For example, Beyond Pesticides, in its comments, claimed that EPA was
not justified in removing the FQPA safety factor and had failed to
address cumulative effects from 2,4-D and other chlorophenoxy
pesticides. (Ref. 28 at 5-6). It is not appropriate for EPA to consider
these comments in support of the petition because they have not been
subject to the public comment process which is critical to the EPA's
administrative review of the petition under section 408(d).

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action, denies a petition to revoke tolerances, is in the form
of an order and not a rule. (21 U.S.C. 346a(f)(1)(C)). Under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), orders are expressly excluded from
the definition of a rule. (5 U.S.C. 551(4)). Accordingly, the
regulatory assessment requirements imposed on a rulemaking do not apply
to this action, as explained further in the following discussion.

A. Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563

    Because this order is not a ``regulatory action'' as that term is
defined in Executive Order 12866 entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive
Orders 12866 and 13563 entitled ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review'' (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not contain any information collections subject to
OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Since this order is not a rule under the APA (5 U.S.C. 551(4)), and
does not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not
apply.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act; and Executive Orders 13132 and 13175

    This order denies a petition to revoke tolerances; it does not
alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities
established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section
408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that this action
will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal
governments, on the relationship between the national government and
the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined
that Executive Order 13132 entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175 entitled ``Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000) do not apply to this order. In addition, this order does not
impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as
described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2
U.S.C. 1531-1538).

E. Executive Orders 13045, 13211 and 12898

    As indicated previously, this action is not a ``regulatory action''
as defined by Executive Order 12866. As a result, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and

Safety Risks'', (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) and Executive Order 13211
entitled ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'', (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). In
addition, this order also does not require any special considerations
under Executive Order 12898 entitled ``Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

F. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA), (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

IX. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. does not apply
because this action is not a rule as that term is defined in 5 U.S.C.
804(3).

X. References

1. Petition of Natural Resources Defense Council to Revoke All
Tolerances and Cancel All Registrations for the Pesticide 2,4-D
(November 6, 2008).
2. Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EPA,
Memorandum from Elizabeth Resek to Jim Downing, ``Transmittal of
Meeting Minutes of the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Meeting Held
on March 25-26, 2008 to review and consider the Endocrine Disrupter
Screening Program (EDSP) Proposed Tier 1 Screening Battery.'' (June
11, 2008).
3. Marino, T.; Coady, K.; Sosinski, L.; et al. (2010) 2,4-
Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid: A Fish Short-Term Reproduction Assay
Using the Fathead Minnow, Pimephales promelas. Project Number:
101026. Unpublished study prepared by Dow Chemical, USA. 155 p. MRID
48317001.
4. Coady, K.; Marino, T.; Thomas, J. (2010) 2,4-
Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid: The Amphibian Metamorphosis Assay Using
the South African Clawed Frog, Xenopus laevis. Project Number:
101025. Unpublished study prepared by Dow Chemical, USA. 152 p. MRID
48317002.
5. Schisler, M.; LeBaron, M.; Visconti, N. (2011) (Endocrine
Disruptor Screening Program): Evaluation of 2,4-
dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid (2,4-D) in an in vitro Androgen Receptor
Binding Assay. Project Number: 111111/OCR. Unpublished study
prepared by Exponent, Inc. and The Dow Chemical Co. 91p. MRID
48614301.
6. Coady, K.; Sosinski, L. (2011) (Endocrine Disruptor Screening
Program): 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid: Evaluation of 2,4-
Dichlorophenoxy Acetic Acid in the Human Recombinant Aromatase
Assay. Project Number: 111036/OCR 31868 P803. Unpublished study
prepared by Exponent, Inc. and The Dow Chemical Co. 98p. MRID
48614302.
7. LeBaron, M.; Schisler, M.; Visconti, N. (2011) (Endocrine
Disruptor Screening Program): 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid:
Evaluation of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid (2,4-D) in an in vitro
Estrogen Receptor Binding Assay. Project Number: 111121/OCR.
Unpublished study prepared by The Dow Chemical Co., and Exponent,
Inc. 91p. MRID 48614303.
8. LeBaron, M.; Kan, H. (2011) (Endocrine Disruptor Screening
Program): Evaluation of 2,4-Dichlorophenoxy Acetic Acid (2,4-D) in
an in vitro Estrogen Receptor Transcriptional Activation Assay in
Human Cell Line HELA-9903. Project Number: 111043/OCR. Unpublished
study prepared by Exponent, Inc., and The Dow Chemical Co. 109p.MRID
48614304.
9. LeBaron, M.; Kan, H.; Perala, A. (2011) (Endocrine Disruptor
Screening Program): Evaluation of 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid
(2,4-D) in the in vitro Steroidogenesis Assay. Project Number:
111038/OCR. Unpublished study prepared by Exponent, Inc., and The
Dow Chemical Co. 78p. MRID 48614305.
10. Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, EPA,
Memorandum from Greg Ackerman to Katie Weyrauch, ``2,4-
Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid (2,4-D) - Report of the Endocrine
Disruptor Review Team--Test Order : EDSP-031001-120''
(December 20, 2010).
11. EPA, A User's Guide to Available EPA Information on Assessing
Exposure to Pesticides in Food (June 21, 2000).
12. Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs'
Policy on the Determination of the Appropriate FQPA Safety Factor(s)
for Use in the Tolerance Setting Process (February 28, 2002).
13. Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EPA, Memorandum from
Stephen L. Johnson to Douglas D. Campt, ``Transmittal of Final FIFRA
Scientific Advisory Panel Reports on the June 25, 1987 meeting''
(July 8, 1987).
14. EPA, Scientific Advisory Panel Open Meeting (June 25, 1987).
15. EPA, An SAB Report: Assessment of Potential 2,4-D
Carcinogenicity. Review of the Epidemiological and Other Data on
Potential Carcinogenicity of 2,4-D by the SAB/SAP Joint Committee.
(March 22, 1994).
16. EPA, Carcinogenicity Peer Review (4th) of 2,4-
Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D). (January 29, 1997).
17. EPA, Agency Review of Task Force II Study Submission: MRID
44284501 and MRID 44284502. (March 16, 1999).
18. Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EPA,
Reregistration Eligibility Decision for 2,4-D (June 2005).
19. Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EPA,
Memorandum from Timothy C. Dole to Katie Hall, ``2,4-D. HED's
Revised Human Health Risk Assessment for the Reregistration
Eligibility Decision (RED) Revised to Reflect Public Comments. PC
Code 030001; DP Barcode D316597'' (May 12, 2005).
20. Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, EPA,
Memorandum from Alexandra LaMay to Michael Walsh, ``Petition for the
Establishment of a New Formulation of 2,4-D Choline on Herbicide
Tolerant Field Corn Containing the Aryloxyalkanoate Dioxygenase-1
(ADD-1) Gene. (October 27, 2011).
21. Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, EPA,
Memorandum from Alexandra LaMay to Michael Walsh, ``2,4-D: Amended
Petition for the Establishment of a New Formulation of 2,4-D Choline
on Herbicide Tolerant Field Corn Containing the Aryloxyalkanoate
Dioxygenase-1 (ADD-1) Gene.'' (February 22, 2012).
22. NRDC, ``Supplement To The Natural Resources Defense Council
Petition To Revoke All Tolerances And Cancel All Registrations For
The Pesticide 2,4-D'' (February 23, 2009).
23. Boston Women's Health Book Collective, et al., Objections to the
establishment of a tolerance for pesticide chemical residues of 2,4-
D. OPP 301219. (May 7, 2002).
24. Beyond Pesticides, NRDC, et. al. comments on RED 2004. At
regulations.gov EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0167-0072 (August 23, 2004).
25. Agricultural Retailers Association et al. Docket ID number EPA-
HQ-OPP-2008-0877. Available at regulations.gov EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0877-
0104.
26. Industry Task Force II on 2,4-D Research Data, Comments on The
Natural Resource Defense Council's Petition to Revoke All Tolerances
and Cancel All Registrations for the Pesticide 2,4-D'' (February 23,
2009).
27. National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc., ``Re:
Docket  EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0877 (February 20, 2009).
28. Beyond Pesticides, ``Re: Petition to Revoke all Tolerances and
Cancel all Registrations for the Pesticide 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic
Acid (2,4-D); Docket Number: EPA-OPP-2008-0877'' (February 23,
2009).
29. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, New
York State Department of Health, ``RE: EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0877''
(February 23, 2009).
30. Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, EPA,
Memorandum from Linda Taylor, Nancy McCarroll, and Khin Swe Oo to
Joel Wolf, ``2,4-D: Evaluation of Data Identified in NRDC Petition
and Associated Documents'' (March 27, 2012).
31. Risk Assessment Branch VII, Health Effects Division (7509P),
EPA, 2,4-D: Review of Extended 1-Generation Reproduction Study and
Dose-Range-Finding and Pharmacokinetic Titration Studies. D376556.
MRID 47972101, 47417901, 47417902. (November 30, 2010).

32. Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, EPA,
Memorandum from Linda Taylor to Katie Weyrauch, ``2,4-D: Revised
Executive Summary of the Data Evaluation record of the Extended 1-
Generation Reproduction Study'' (June 1, 2011).
33. Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EPA,
Health Effects Test Guidelines, OPPTS 870.3800: Reproduction and
Fertility Effects (August 1998).
34. Xie, L.; Thrippleton, K.; Irwin, M.A., et al. Evaluation of
estrogenic activities of aquatic herbicides and surfactants using a
rainbow trout vitellogenin assay. Toxicological Sciences 87(2):391-
398, 2005.
35. Rawlings, N.C.; Cook, S.J.; Waldbillig, D. Effects of the
pesticides carbofuran, chlorpyrifos, dimethoate, lindande,
triallate, trifluralin, 2,4-D, and pentachlorphenol on the metabolic
endocrine and reproductive endocrine system in ewes. Journal of
oxicology and Environmental Health 54:21-36, 1998.
36. Charles, J.M.; Cunny, H.C.; Wilson, R.D.; Bus, J.S. Comparative
subchronic studies on 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, amine, and
ester in rats. Fundamental & Applied Toxicology 33:161-165, 1996.
37. Liu, R.C.; Hahn; Hurtt, M.E. The direct effect of hepatic
peroxisome proliferators on rat leydig cell function in vitro.
Fundamental & Applied Toxicology 30:102-108, 1996.
38. Kim, H.J.; Park, Y.I.; Dong, M.S. Effectos of 2,4-D and DCP on
the DHT-induced androgenic action in human prostate cancer cells.
Toxocological Sciences 88(I); 52-59, 2005.
39. Kim, H.J.; Kim, W.D,, et al. Mechanism of phenoxy compounds as
an endocrine disruptor. Journal of Toxicology Public Health 18:331-
339, 2002.
40. Duffard, R.; Bortolozzi, Ferri A.; Garcia, G., Evangelista de
Duffard A.M. Developmental neurotoxicity of the herbicide 2,4-
dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. Neurotoxicology 16(4):764, 1995.
41. Lerda, D.; Rixxi, R. Study of reproductive function in persons
occupationally exposed to 2-4-D. Mutation Research 262:47-50, 1991.
42. Garry, V.F.; Schreinemachers, D.; Harkins, M.E., et al.
Pesticide appliers, biocides and birth defects in rural Minnesota.
Environmental Health Perspectives 104:394-399,1996.
43. Garry, V.F.; Hawkins, M.E.; Erickson, L.L.; Long-Simpson, L.K.;
Holland, S.E.; Burroughs, B.L. Birth defects, season of conception,
and sex of children born to pesticide applicators living in the Red
River Valley of Minnesota, USA. Environmental Health Perspectives.
2002 June; 110(Suppl 3): 441-449.
44. Garry, V.F.; Tarone, R.E.; Kirsch, I.R.; Abdallah, J.M.;
Lombardi, D.P.; Long, L.K.; Burroughs, B.L.; Barr, D.B.; and Kesner,
J.S. Biomarker Correlations of Urinary 2,4-D Levels in Foresters:
Genomic Instability and Endocrine Disruption. Environmental Health
Perspectives V109/No. 5 pp. 495-500 (May 2001).
45. Malysheva, L.N.; and Zhavoronkov, A.A. (1997). Morphological and
histochemical changes in the thyroid gland after a single exposure
to 2,4-DA herbicide. Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine
124 (12),676-677.
46. Ton, C.; Lin,Y.; Willett, C. Zebrafish as a model for
development neurotoxicity testing, Birth Defects Research (Part A)
76:553-567, 2006. http://phylonix.com/BDRA-Ton.pdf.
47. Evangelista de Duffard, A.M; Bortolozzi, A.; Duffard, R.O.
Altered behavioral responses in 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid
treated and amphetamine challenged rats. Neurotoxicology 16(3):479-
488, 1995.
48. Bortolozzi, A.; Evanglista de Duffard, A.M.; Dajas, F.; Duffard,
R. Silveira, R. Intracerebral administration of 2,4-
diclorophenoxyacetic acid induces behavioral and neurochemical
alterations in the rat brain. Neurotoxicology 2001 April 22 (2):221-
32.
49. Rosso, S.B.; Garcia, G.B.; Madariaga, M.J.; Evangelisa de
Duffard, A.M.; Duffard, R.O, 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid in
developing rats alters behaviour, myelination and regions brain
gangliosides pattern, Neurotoxicology 2000 Feb-Apr; 21(1-2):155-63.
50. Duffard, R.; Garcia, G.; Rosso, S.; Bortolozzi, A.; Madariaga,
M.; di Paolo, O.; Evangelista De Duffard, A.M. Central nervous
system myelin deficit in rats exposed 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid
throughout lactation, Neurotoxicolgy and Teratology 1996 Nov-Dec;
18(6):691-6.
51. Konjuh, C.; Garcia, G.; Lopez, L.; De Duffard, A.M.; Brusco, A.;
Duffard, R. Neonatal hypomyelination by the herbicide 2,4-
dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. Chemical and ultrastructural studies in
rats. Toxicological Sciences 104(2):332-40, 2008.
52. EPA, Guidelines for Mutagenicity Risk Assessment (1986).
53. Dearfield et al. (1991), Considerations in the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's testing approach for mutagenicity,
Mutation Research, 258: 259-283.
54. EPA, Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (2005).
55. McGregor et al., (2000), Strategies and testing methods for
identifying mutagenic risks, Mutation Research 455: 3-20.
56. Dearfield, K.; Cimino, M.; McCarroll, N.; Mauer, I.; Valcovic,
L., 2002. Genotoxicity risk assessment: a proposed classification
strategy. Mutation Research, 521(2002): 121-135.
57. Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EPA,
Health Effects Test Guidelines, OPPTS 870.5100, Bacterial Reverse
Mutation Test (August 1998).
58. Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EPA,
Health Effects Test Guidelines, OPPTS 870.5300 In Vitro Mammalian
Cell Gene Mutation Test (August 1998).
59. Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EPA,
Health Effects Test Guidelines, OPPTS 870.5375, In Vitro Mammalian
Chromosome Aberration Test (August 1998).
60. Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EPA,
Health Effects Test Guidelines, OPPTS 870. 5385 Mammalian Bone
Marrow Chromosome Aberration Test (August 1998).
61. Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EPA,
Health Effects Test Guidelines, OPPTS 870.5395 Mammalian Erythrocyte
Micronucleus Test (August 1998).
62. Thybaud et al., (2011), Strategies in case of positive in vivo
results in genotoxicity testing strategies in vivo. Mutation
Research 723: 121-128.
63. Madrigal-Bujaidar, E.; Hernandez-Ceruelos, A.; Chamorro, G.
Induction of sister chromatid exchanges by 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid in somatic and germ cells of mice exposed in vivo. Food and
Chemical Toxicology 39(9):941-6, 2001.
64. Soleneski, S.; Gonzalez, N.V.; Reigosa, M.A.; Larramendy, M.L.,
Herbicide 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D)-induced cytogenic
damage in human lymphocytes in vitro presence of erythrocytes. Cell
Biology International 31(11):1316-22, 2007.
65. Gonzalez, M.; Solenski, S.; Reigosa, M.A.; Larramendy, M.L.
Genotoxicity of the herbicide 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic and a
commercial formulation, 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid dimethylamine
salt. I. Evaluation of DNA. Damage and cytogenic endpoints in
Chinese Hamster ovary (CHO) cells. Toxicology In Vitro 19(2):289-97,
2005.
66. Arias, E. Sister chromatid exchange induction by the herbicide
2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid in chick embryos. Ecotoxicology and
Environmental Safety 55(3):338-43, 2003.
 67. Arias, E. Cytogenetic Effects of Short- and Long-term Exposure
of Chick Embryos to the Phenoxyherbicide 2,4-D. Environmental and
Molecular Mutagenesis., 48:462-466. Doi:10.1002/em.20301. 2007.
68. Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA, Reevaluation of the Genetic
Toxicology Profile on 2,4-D (December 12, 2011).
69. Zeljezic, D.; Garaj-Vrhovac,V. Chromosomal aberrations,
micronuclei and nuclear buds induced in human lymphocytes by 2,4-
dichlorophenoxyacetic acid pesticide formulation. Toxicology 200:39-
47, 2004.
70. Venkov, P.; Topashka-Ancheva, M.; Georgieva, M.; Alexieva, V.;
Karanov, E. Genotoxic effect of substituted phenoxyacetic acids.
Archives of Toxicology 74:560-6, 2000.
71. Figgs, L.W.; Holland, N.T.; Rothman, N.; Zahm, S.H., et al.
Increased lymphocyte replicative index following 2,4-
dichlorophenoxyacetic acid herbicide exposure. Cancer Causes and
Control 11(4):373-80, 2000.
72. Holland, N.T.; Duramad, P.; Rothman, N.; Giggs, L.W., et al.
Micronucleus frequency and proliferation in human lymphocytes after
exposure to herbicide

2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid in vitro and in vivo. Mutation
Research 521:165-178, 2002.
73. Tuschl, H.; Schwab, C. Cyctotoxic effects of the herbicide 2,4-
dichlorophenoxyacetic acid in HepG2 cells. Food and Chemical
Toxicology 41:385-393, 2003.
74. Bukowska, B. Effects of 2,4-D and its metabolite 2,4-
dichlorophenol on antioxidant enzymes and level of glutathione in
human erythrocytes. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part C:
Toxicology and Pharmacology 135(4):435-41, 2004.
75. Venkov, P.; Topashka-Ancheva, M.; Georgieva, M.; Alexieva, V.;
Karanov, E. Genotoxic effect of substituted phenoxyacetic acids.
Archives of Toxicology 74:560-6, 2000.
76. Tripathy, N.K.; Routray, P.K.; Sahu, G.P.; Kumar; A.A.
Genotoxicity of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid tested in somatic
germ-line cells of Drosophila. Mutation Research 319(3):237-42,
1993.
77. Sturtz, N.; Bongiovanni, B., et al. Detection of 2,4-
dichlorphenoxyacetic acid in rat milk of dams exposed during
lactation and milk analysis of their major components. Food and
Chemical Toxicology 44:8-16, 2006.
78. Marty, M.S.; S.A. Saghir; C.L. Zablotny; A.J. Clark; A.W.
Perala; B.L. Yano; J.S. Bus, and B.H. Neal. A dietary dose range-
finding and toxicokinetic (TK) study of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid (2,4-D) in adult CRL:CD(SD) rats and their offspring: II.
Toxicity. Abstract No. 1262. 2009 Itinerary Planner. Baltimore, MD:
Society of Toxicology.
79. Tasker, E. (1985) A Dietary Two-Generation Reproduction Study in
Fischer 344 Rats with 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid: Final Report:
Project No. WIL-81137. Unpublished study prepared by Wil Research
Laboratories, Inc. MRID 00150557.
80. Brown, R. (1986) A Dietary Two-generation Reproduction Study in
Fischer 344 Rats with 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid: Addendum to
the Final Report: [Microscopic Evaluation of the Kidneys of the FO,
F1 and F1b Male Rats]: Project No. WIL-81137. Unpublished study
prepared by WIL Research Laboratories, Inc. MRID 00163996.
81. Nishioka, M.G.; Burkholder, H.M.; Brinkman, M.C.; Gordon, S.M.
1996. Measuring lawn transport of lawn-applied herbicide acids from
turf to home: Correlation of dislodgeable 2,4-D turf residues with
carpet dust and carpet surface residues. Environmental Science and
Technology 30:3313-3320.
82. Nishioka, M.G.; Lewis, R.G.; Brinkman, M.C.; Burkholder, H.M.;
Hines, C.E.; and Menkedick, J.R. Distribution of 2,4-D in air and on
surfaces inside residences after lawn applications: comparing
exposure estimates from various media for young children.
Environmental Health Perspectives. 2001 November; 109(11): 1185-
1191.
83. Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S.EPA, 2,4-D Response to Public
Comments (December 16, 2004); EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0167-0090.
84. Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EPA,
Memorandum from Myra Christiansen to Debra Edwards, ``Transmittal of
meeting minutes of the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Meeting on
the Evaluation of Updated Standard Operating Procedures for
Residential Exposure Assessment'' (December 16, 2009).
85. Child Specific Exposure Factors Handbook (Table 5-1, pg 5-5).
See http://www.epa.gov/ncea/efh/pdfs/efh-chapter05.pdf.
86. Wilson, R. (1998) Comparison of Transferable Turf Residues from
the Application of Various Forms of Phenoxy Herbicides and the
Effects from the Application of Various Spray Volumes Per Acre: Lab
Project Number: RDW98-0903. Unpublished study prepared by Broadleaf
Turf Herbicide TFR Task Force LLC. 40 p. (OPPTS 875.2100) MRID
44655701.
87. Meeting of the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee, Children/
Worker Risk Policy. See http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc/2011/april/session4-ch-workerrisk.pdf. April 20-21, 2011.
88. Residue Chemistry Test Guidelines, OPPTS 860.1000, Background.
EPA 712-C-96-169, August 1996.
89. Moody, R.P.; Wester, R.C.; Melendres, J.L.; Maibach, H.I. Dermal
absorption of the phenoxy herbicide 2,4-D dimethylamine in humans
effect of DEET and anatomic site. Journal of Toxicology and
Environmental Health 36(3):241-50.,1992. MRID 48772102.
90. Feldmann, R.J.; Maibach, H.I., 1974. Percutaneous penetration of
some pesticides and herbicides in man. Toxicology and Applied
Pharmacology 28, 126-132.
91. Ross, R.H.; Driver, J.H.; Harris, S.A.; Maibach, H.I. (2005).
Dermal absorption of 2,4-D: a review of species differences.
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 41: 82-91.
92. Brand, R.M.; McMahon, L., et al. (2007) Transdermal absorption
of the herbicide 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid is enhanced by both
ethanol consumption and sunscreen application. Food and Chemical
Toxicology 45:93-97.
93. Pont, A.R.; Charron, A.R.; Brand, R.M. (2004). Active
ingredients in sunscreens act as topical penetration enhancers for
the herbicide, 4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. Toxicology and Applied
Pharmacology 195: 348-354.
94. Brand, R.M.; Charron, A.R.; Dutton, L.; Gavlic, T.L., et al.
(2004). Effects of Chronic Alcohol Consumption on Dermal Penetration
of Pesticides in Rats. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental
Health A 67, 153-161.
95. Brand, R.M.; Spalding, M.; Mueller, C. (2002). Sunscreens can
increase dermal penetration of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid.
Journal of Toxicology Clinical Toxicology 40 (7): 827-832.
96. Harris, S.A.; Solomon, K.R. 1992. Percutaneous penetration of
2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid and 2,4-D dimethylamine salt in human
volunteers. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health 36, 233-
240. MRID 48772104.
97. Maibach, H.I.; Feldmann, R.J., 1974. Systemic absorption of
pesticides through the skin of man. In: Occupational Exposure to
Pesticides: Report to the Federal Working Group on Pest Management
from the Task Group on Occupational Exposure to Pesticides, Appendix
B. U.S. Government Printing Office, 0-551-026, Washington, DC, pp.
120-127. MRID 46859102.
98. Wester, R.C.; Melendres, J.; Sedik, L.; Maibach, H.; Riviere,
J.E., 1998. Percutaneous absorption of salicylic acid, theophylline,
2,4-dimethylamine, diethyl hexyl phthalic acid, and p-aminobenzoic
acid in the isolated perfused porcine skin flap compared to man in
vivo. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 151, 159-165. MRID
48772101.
99. Lerda, D.; and Rizzi, R. Study of Reproductive Function In
Persons Occupationally Exposed to 2,4-D. Mutation Research, 262
(1991) pp. 47-50.
100. Morgan, M.K.; L.S. Sheldon; K.W. Thomas; P.O. Egegly; C.W.
Croghan; P.A. Jones; J.C. Chuang, and N.K. Wilson. Adult and
children's exposure to 2,4-D from multiple sources and pathways.
(2008) Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology
18, 486-494.
101. Alexander, B.H.; Mandel, J.S.; Baker, B.A.; Burns, C.J.;
Bartels, M.J.; Acquavella, J.F.; Gustin, C., Biomonitoring of 2,4-
dichlorophenoxyacetic acid exposure and dose in farm families.
(2007) Environmental Health Perspectives 115(3):370-6.
102. Draft Framework and Case Studies on Atrazine, Human Incidents,
and the Agricultural Health Study: Incorporatin of Epidemiology and
Human Incident Data into Human Health Risk Assessment. FIFRA
Scientific Advisory Panel, (February 2010).

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and
pests.

    Dated: April 7, 2012.
Steven Bradbury,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
 [FR Doc. 2012-9106 Filed 4-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 37 (Friday, February 24, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11830-11833]
[FR Doc No: 2023-03625]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1163; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-00571-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Embraer S.A. (Type Certificate
Previously Held by Yabor[atilde] Ind[uacute]stria Aeron[aacute]utica
S.A.; Embraer S.A.) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is revising a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
that would have applied to certain Embraer S.A. Model ERJ 170
airplanes. This action revises the NPRM by adding airplanes to the
applicability. The FAA is proposing this airworthiness directive (AD)
to address the unsafe condition on these products. Since these actions
would impose an additional burden over those in the NPRM, the FAA is
requesting comments on this SNPRM.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this SNPRM by April 10, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2022-1163; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains the NPRM, this SNPRM, the mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI), any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For material that is proposed for incorporation by
reference in this SNPRM, contact National Civil Aviation Agency (ANAC),
Aeronautical Products Certification Branch (GGCP), Rua Dr.

Orlando Feirabend Filho, 230--Centro Empresarial Aquarius--Torre B--
Andares 14 a 18, Parque Residencial Aquarius, CEP 12.246-190--
S[atilde]o Jos[eacute] dos Campos--SP, Brazil; telephone 55 (12) 3203-
6600; email anac.gov.br">[email protected]anac.gov.br; website anac.gov.br/en/. You may find this
material on the ANAC website at sistemas.anac.gov.br/certificacao/DA/
DAE.asp. It is also available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-
2022-1163.
     You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hassan M. Ibrahim, Aerospace Engineer,
Large Aircraft Section, FAA, International Validation Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2022-1163; Project Identifier
MCAI-2022-00571-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this SNPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this SNPRM contain
commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as
private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or
responsive to this SNPRM, it is important that you clearly designate
the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission
containing CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked
submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed
in the public docket of this SNPRM. Submissions containing CBI should
be sent to Hassan M. Ibrahim, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft
Section, FAA, International Validation Branch, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected]. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is
not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket
for this rulemaking.

Background

    The FAA issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that
would apply to certain Embraer S.A. Model ERJ 170 airplanes. The NPRM
published in the Federal Register on September 15, 2022 (87 FR 56598).
The NPRM was prompted by AD 2022-04-01, effective April 29, 2022 (ANAC
AD 2022-04-01), issued by ANAC, which is the aviation authority for
Brazil. ANAC AD 2022-04-01 states that certain flight control
electrical harnesses were routed incorrectly, providing inadequate
separation from other electrical harness installations.
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require an inspection of certain
flight control electrical harnesses for incorrect routing, and
modifying any incorrect electrical harness installations.

Actions Since the NPRM Was Issued

    Since the FAA issued the NPRM, ANAC superseded ANAC AD 2022-04-01
and issued ANAC AD 2022-04-01R1, effective October 31, 2022 (ANAC AD
2022-04-01R1) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe
condition for certain Embraer S.A. Model ERJ 170 airplanes. ANAC AD
2022-04-01R1 has a revised applicability that includes additional
serial numbers. The MCAI states that certain flight control electrical
harnesses were routed incorrectly, providing inadequate separation from
other electrical harness installations.
    The FAA is proposing this AD to address incorrect routing of flight
control electrical harnesses near critical fuel quantity indication
harnesses, which could possibly result in fuel tank ignition and
subsequent loss of the airplane.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2022-1163.

Comments

    The FAA received comments from four commenters, including Embraer,
Horizon Air, Republic Airways, and SkyWest Airlines. The following
presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to
each comment.

Request To Withdraw the Proposed AD

    Embraer requested that the proposed AD be withdrawn because ANAC AD
2022-04-01R1, effective October 31, 2022, has superseded AD 2022-04-01,
effective April 29, 2022, to revise the applicability. Embraer
suggested that the FAA could withdraw the proposed AD or issue a new
proposed AD to avoid the need for a new FAA AD to include the
additional airplanes.
    The FAA updated the applicability to match ANAC AD 2022-04-01R1.
However, the FAA is not withdrawing the NPRM, but is instead issuing
this SNPRM to include the new applicability. This proposed AD has been
revised to reference ANAC AD 2022-04-01R1 throughout.

Request To Revise Compliance Time

    Republic Airways and SkyWest Airlines requested that the compliance
time be changed. Republic requested a change to three years to align
with the heavy maintenance schedule and noted that certain parts of the
service information require inspecting an area that is difficult to
access due to the proximity of the 195 aft wing-to-fuselage fairing
(WTFF), which is removed during heavy maintenance. SkyWest requested a
change to 10,000 flight hours or 60 months to align with the
recommended compliance time specified in the service information
referenced in ANAC AD 2022-04-01.
    The FAA disagrees with the commenters' requests to revise the
compliance time. ANAC, as the state of design authority, conducted a
safety analysis and determined that a 12-month compliance time is
appropriate to mitigate the identified unsafe condition. The FAA
concurs with ANAC's assessment. However, under the provisions specified
in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, operators may request an alternative
method of compliance (AMOC) to use a different compliance time. This
proposed AD has not been changed with regard to these requests.

Request To Revise Exceptions Paragraph

    Horizon Air commenter requested that the exceptions in paragraph
(h)(2) of the proposed AD be limited to paragraph (b) of ANAC AD 2022-
04-01, instead of the entire ``Alternative

methods of compliance (AMOC)'' section. The commenter stated that ANAC
AD 2022-04-01 paragraphs (c), (c)(1), and (c)(2) clarify that only
steps labeled Required for Compliance (RC) must be done to comply with
the AD, and that excepting paragraphs (c), (c)(1), and (c)(2) would
unnecessarily mandate steps that are not required to correct the unsafe
condition.
    The FAA agrees with the commenter's request for the reasons
provided and notes that the service information referenced in ANAC AD
2022-04-01R1 contains steps labeled RC. However, in ANAC AD 2022-04-
01R1, the corresponding paragraph not required by this proposed AD is
now labeled paragraph (c), while the paragraphs explaining RC service
information are in paragraphs (d), (d)(1), and (d)(2) of ANAC AD 2022-
04-01R1. Therefore, paragraph (h)(2) of this proposed AD has been
revised to refer only to paragraph (c) of ANAC AD 2022-04-01R1.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    ANAC AD 2022-04-01R1 specifies procedures for inspecting the
installation of flight control electrical harnesses W126 and W127 for
incorrect routing and modifying any incorrect electrical harness
installations. This material is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, it
has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
described above. The FAA is issuing this SNPRM after determining that
the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop
in other products of the same type design.
    Certain changes described above expand the scope of the NPRM. As a
result, it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide
additional opportunity for the public to comment on this SNPRM.

Proposed AD Requirements in This SNPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in ANAC AD 2022-04-01R1 described previously, except for any
differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this
proposed AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation
authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance
with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been
coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the
FAA proposes to incorporate ANAC AD 2022-04-01R1 by reference in the
FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance
with ANAC AD 2022-04-01R1 in its entirety through that incorporation,
except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory
text of this proposed AD. Service information required by ANAC AD 2022-
04-01R1 for compliance will be available at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2022-1163 after the FAA final rule is published.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 701 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following
costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 work-hours x $85 per hour = $255...........................              $0             $255         $178,755
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition actions that would be required based on the results of any
required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:

                                     Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                                  Labor cost                                       Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 work-hours x $85 per hour = $425............................................              $0             $425
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    The FAA is 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

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed
regulation:

    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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:

Embraer S.A. (Type Certificate Previously Held by Yabor[atilde]
Ind[uacute]stria Aeron[aacute]utica S.A.; Embraer S.A.): Docket No.
FAA-2022-1163; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-00571-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by April 10, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

 (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Embraer S.A. (Type Certificate previously
held by Yabor[atilde] Ind[uacute]stria Aeron[aacute]utica S.A.;
Embraer S.A.) Model ERJ 170-100 LR, -100 STD, -100 SE, and -100 SU
airplanes; and Model ERJ 170-200 LR, -200 SU, -200 STD, and -200 LL
airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in
Ag[ecirc]ncia Nacional de Avia[ccedil][atilde]o Civil (ANAC) AD
2022-04-01R1, effective October 31, 2022 (ANAC AD 2022-04-01R1).

 (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight
controls.

 (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports indicating that certain flight
control electrical harnesses were routed incorrectly, providing
inadequate separation from other electrical harness installations.
The FAA is issuing this AD to address the incorrect routing of
flight control electrical harnesses near critical fuel quantity
indication harnesses, which could possibly result in fuel tank
ignition and subsequent loss of the airplane.

 (f) Compliance

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

 (g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, ANAC AD 2022-04-01R1.

 (h) Exceptions to ANAC AD 2022-04-01R1

    (1) Where ANAC AD 2022-04-01R1 refers to April 29, 2022 (the
effective date of ANAC AD 2022-04-01), this AD requires using the
effective date of this AD.
    (2) Where ANAC AD 2022-04-01R1 refers to its effective date,
this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (3) Where ANAC AD 2022-04-01R1 refers to August 3, 2022 (the
Revision 02 date of Embraer Service Bulletin), the correct date is
August 5, 2022.
    (4) Paragraph (c) of ANAC AD 2022-04-01R1 does not apply to this
AD.

 (i) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Validation Branch, 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 responsible Flight Standards Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the International
Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified
in paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Validation Branch, FAA; or ANAC; or ANAC's authorized Designee. If
approved by the ANAC Designee, the approval must include the
Designee's authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as specified by
paragraph (i)(2) of this AD: if any service information contains
steps that are labeled as RC, the provisions of paragraphs (j)(3)(i)
and (ii) of this AD apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled ``RC Exempt,'' then the
RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is
required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and
identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.

 (j) Additional Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Hassan M. Ibrahim,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, FAA, International
Validation Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

 (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) Ag[ecirc]ncia Nacional de Avia[ccedil][atilde]o Civil (ANAC)
AD 2022-04-01R1, effective October 31, 2022.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For ANAC AD 2022-04-01, contact National Civil Aviation
Agency (ANAC), Aeronautical Products Certification Branch (GGCP),
Rua Dr. Orlando Feirabend Filho, 230--Centro Empresarial Aquarius--
Torre B--Andares 14 a 18, Parque Residencial Aquarius, CEP 12.246-
190--S[atilde]o Jos[eacute] dos Campos--SP, Brazil; telephone 55
(12) 3203-6600; email anac.gov.br">[email protected]anac.gov.br; website anac.gov.br/en/. You
may find this ANAC AD on the ANAC website at sistemas.anac.gov.br/
certificacao/DA/DAE.asp.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (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, email [email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on February 16, 2023.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-03625 Filed 2-23-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: February 23, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 34)]
[Notices]
[Page 8078-8079]
[DOCID:fr23fe09-41]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP09-57-000]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Notice of
Application

February 12, 2009.
    Take notice that on January 30, 2009, Transcontinental Gas Pipe
Line Company, LLC (Transco), Post Office Box 1396, Houston, Texas
77251, filed with the Commission an application under section 7 of the
Natural Gas Act (NGA) for a certificate of public convenience and
necessity authorizing Transco's 85 North Expansion Project (Project).
Specifically, Transco proposes to expand its existing pipeline system
in its Southern Market area to provide an additional 308,500 dekatherms
per day (dt/day) of incremental firm transportation service to four
shippers. Transco proposes to complete the project in two phases, with
90,000 dt/day to be placed in-service July 1, 2010, and an additional
218,500 dt/day to be placed in-service May 1, 2011. Transco also
requests authorization to abandon four obsolete compressor units at
Transco's existing Compressor Station No. 100 and two centrifugal
compressors at Transco's existing Compressor Station No. 125, all as
more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the
Commission and open to public inspection. The filing is available for
review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-
free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Scott Turkington, Rates and Regulatory, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line
Company, Post Office Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251-1396, phone (713)
215-3391, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this application. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to this proceeding should file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10) by the
comment date, below. A person obtaining party status will be placed on
the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will
receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other
parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the
Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other
party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for
court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to the project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link. 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.
    Comment Date: March 5, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-3678 Filed 2-20-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 250 (Monday, December 31, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77085-77087]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31344]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2012-0003]

Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final Notice.

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

SUMMARY: New or modified Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations
(BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries
or zone designations, and/or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter
referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated
Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the
table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate
Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS)
reports, currently in effect for the listed communities. The flood
hazard determinations modified by each LOMR will be used to calculate
flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents.

DATES: The effective date for each LOMR is indicated in the table
below.

ADDRESSES: Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective
Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online
through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
(email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the
LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these
modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers
of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that
publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation has
resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
    The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to
section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of
1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR part 65.
    For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is
shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
    The new or modified flood hazard determinations are the basis for
the floodplain management measures that the community is required
either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order
to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP).
    These new or modified flood hazard determinations, together with
the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the
minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that
the community must change any existing ordinances that are more
stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community
may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to
policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
    These new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet
the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to
calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new
buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in
flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to
review the final flood hazard information available at the address
cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service
Center at www.msc.fema.gov.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Chief executive         Community map                                         Community
          State and county            Location and case No.   officer of community        repository        Effective date of modification       No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama:
    Jefferson (FEMA Docket No.: B-   City of Birmingham (11- The Honorable William  Planning and           June 25, 2012...................       010116
     1252).                           04-6111P).              Bell, Mayor, City of   Engineering Office,
                                                              Birmingham, 710        710 North 20th
                                                              North 20th Street,     Street, 5th floor,
                                                              Birmingham, AL 35203.  Birmingham, AL 35203.
    Mobile (FEMA Docket No.: B-      Unincorporated areas    The Honorable Connie   Mobile County          July 9, 2012....................       015008
     1252).                           of Mobile County (11-   Hudson, President,     Government Plaza,
                                      04-5872P).              Mobile County          205 Government
                                                              Commission, P.O. Box   Street, 3rd Floor,
                                                              1443, Mobile, AL       South Tower, Mobile,
                                                              36633.                 AL 36644.
    Mobile (FEMA Docket No.: B-      Unincorporated areas    The Honorable Connie   Mobile County          July 9, 2012....................       015008
     1252).                           of Mobile County (11-   Hudson, President,     Government Plaza,
                                      04-6441P).              Mobile County          205 Government
                                                              Commission, P.O. Box   Street, 3rd Floor,
                                                              1443, Mobile, AL       South Tower, Mobile,
                                                              36633.                 AL 36644.
Arizona:
    Coconino (FEMA Docket No.: B-    City of Flagstaff (11-  The Honorable Sara     City Hall, Stormwater  June 4, 2012....................       040020
     1252).                           09-3784P).              Presler, Mayor, City   Management Section,
                                                              of Flagstaff, 211      211 West Aspen
                                                              West Aspen Avenue,     Avenue, Flagstaff,
                                                              Flagstaff, AZ 86001.   AZ 86001.
    Coconino (FEMA Docket No.: B-    City of Flagstaff (11-  The Honorable Sara     City Hall, Stormwater  June 29, 2012...................       040020
     1252).                           09-3786P).              Presler, Mayor, City   Management Section,
                                                              of Flagstaff, 211      211 West Aspen
                                                              West Aspen Avenue,     Avenue, Flagstaff,
                                                              Flagstaff, AZ 86001.   AZ 86001.
    Pinal (FEMA Docket No.: B-1252)  City of Eloy (11-09-    The Honorable Byron    628 North Main         June 15, 2012...................       040083
                                      3507P).                 K. Jackson, Mayor,     Street, Eloy, AZ
                                                              City of Eloy, 628      85131.
                                                              North Main Street,
                                                              Eloy, AZ 85131.

    Santa Cruz (FEMA Docket No.: B-  Unincorporated areas    The Honorable Rudy     2150 North Congress    June 18, 2012...................       040090
     1252).                           of Santa Cruz County    Molera, Chairman,      Drive, Room 117,
                                      (11-09-3703P).          Santa Cruz County      Nogales, AZ 85621.
                                                              Board of
                                                              Supervisors, 2150
                                                              North Congress
                                                              Drive, Nogales, AZ
                                                              85621.
California:
    Los Angeles (FEMA Docket No.: B- City of Burbank (11-09- The Honorable Jess     Public Works           June 28, 2012...................       065018
     1252).                           3187P).                 Talamantes, Mayor,     Department, 150
                                                              City of Burbank, 275   North 3rd Street,
                                                              East Olive Avenue,     Burbank, CA 91502.
                                                              Burbank, CA 91502.
    Los Angeles (FEMA Docket No.: B- City of Burbank (12-09- The Honorable Jess     Public Works           June 25, 2012...................       065018
     1252).                           0407P).                 Talamantes, Mayor,     Department, 150
                                                              City of Burbank, 275   North 3rd Street,
                                                              East Olive Avenue,     Burbank, CA 91502.
                                                              Burbank, CA 91502.
    Los Angeles (FEMA Docket No.: B- City of Los Angeles     The Honorable Antonio  6500 South Spring      June 25, 2012...................       060137
     1252).                           (12-09-0407P).          R. Villaraigosa,       Street, Suite 1200,
                                                              Mayor, City of Los     Los Angeles, CA
                                                              Angeles, City Hall,    90014.
                                                              200 North Spring
                                                              Street, Los Angeles,
                                                              CA 90012.
    Los Angeles (FEMA Docket No.: B- City of Santa Clarita   The Honorable Laurie   23920 West Valencia    June 15, 2012...................       060729
     1252).                           (12-09-0632P).          Ender, Mayor, City     Boulevard, Suite
                                                              of Santa Clarita,      300, Santa Clarita,
                                                              23920 West Valencia    CA 91355.
                                                              Boulevard, Santa
                                                              Clarita, CA 91355.
    Los Angeles (FEMA Docket No.: B- Unincorporated areas    The Honorable Zev      Department of Public   June 25, 2012...................       065043
     1252).                           of Los Angeles County   Yaroslavsky,           Works, 900 South
                                      (11-09-4035P).          Chairman, Los          Fremont Avenue,
                                                              Angeles County Board   Alhambra, CA 91803.
                                                              of Supervisors, 500
                                                              West Temple Street,
                                                              Room 821, Los
                                                              Angeles, CA 90012.
Colorado:
    Adams (FEMA Docket No.: B-1252)  City of Commerce City   The Honorable Sean     5291 East 60th         April 11, 2012..................       080006
                                      (11-08-0367P).          Ford, Sr., Mayor,      Avenue, Commerce
                                                              City of Commerce       City, CO 80022.
                                                              City, 7887 East 60th
                                                              Avenue, Commerce
                                                              City, CO 80022.
    Adams (FEMA Docket No.: B-1252)  City of Commerce City   The Honorable Sean     5291 East 60th         June 13, 2012...................       080006
                                      (11-08-0747P).          Ford, Sr., Mayor,      Avenue, Commerce
                                                              City of Commerce       City, CO 80022.
                                                              City, 7887 East 60th
                                                              Avenue, Commerce
                                                              City, CO 80022.
    Adams (FEMA Docket No.: B-1252)  Unincorporated areas    The Honorable W.R.     4430 South Adams       June 13, 2012...................       080001
                                      of Adams County (11-    ``Skip'' Fischer,      County Parkway, 5th
                                      08-0747P).              Chairman, Adams        Floor, Suite C5000A,
                                                              County Board of        Brighton, CO 80601.
                                                              Commissioners, 4430
                                                              South Adams County
                                                              Parkway, 5th Floor,
                                                              Suite C5000A,
                                                              Brighton, CO 80601.
    Larimer (FEMA Docket No.: B-     Town of Timnath (11-08- The Honorable Jill     4100 Main Street,      June 18, 2012...................       080005
     1252).                           1110P).                 Grossman-Belisle,      Timnath, CO 80547.
                                                              Mayor, Town of
                                                              Timnath, 4800
                                                              Goodman Street,
                                                              Timnath, CO 80547.
    Larimer (FEMA Docket No.: B-     Unincorporated areas    The Honorable Lew      200 West Oak Street,   June 18, 2012...................       080101
     1252).                           of Larimer County (11-  Gaiter III,            Fort Collins, CO
                                      08-1110P).              Chairman, Larimer      80521.
                                                              County Board of
                                                              Commissioners, P.O.
                                                              Box 1190, Fort
                                                              Collins, CO 80522.
    Park (FEMA Docket No.: B-1252).  Unincorporated areas    The Honorable Dick     501 Main Street,       June 18, 2012...................       080139
                                      of Park County (11-08-  Hodges, Chairman,      Fairplay, CO 80440.
                                      1151P).                 Park County Board of
                                                              Commissioners, P.O.
                                                              Box 1373, Fairplay,
                                                              CO 80440.
Connecticut: Hartford, (FEMA Docket  Town of Avon (12-01-    The Honorable Mark     Town Hall, 60 West     June 18, 2012...................       090021
 No.: B-1252).                        0826X).                 Zacchio, Chairman,     Main Street, Avon,
                                                              Avon Town Council,     CT 06001.
                                                              60 West Main Street,
                                                              Avon, CT 06001.
Florida:
    Charlotte (FEMA Docket No.: B-   City of Punta Gorda     The Honorable Bill     326 West Marion,       June 18, 2012...................       120062
     1252).                           (12-04-1783P).          Albers, Mayor, City    Punta Gorda, FL
                                                              of Punta Gorda, 326    33950.
                                                              West Marion Avenue,
                                                              Punta Gorda, FL
                                                              33950.
    Monroe (FEMA Docket No.: B-      Unincorporated areas    The Honorable Kim      Monroe County          June 11, 2012...................       125129
     1252).                           of Monroe County (12-   Wigington, Mayor Pro   Department of
                                      04-0296P).              Tem, Monroe County,    Planning and
                                                              500 Whitehead          Environmental
                                                              Street, Suite 102,     Resources, 2798
                                                              Key West, FL 33040.    Overseas Highway,
                                                                                Marathon, FL 33050.
    Santa Rosa (FEMA Docket No.: B-  Unincorporated areas    The Honorable Jim      Building Inspections,  June 28, 2012...................       120274
     1252).                           of Santa Rosa County    Williamson,            6051 Old Bagdad
                                      (11-04-7398P).          Chairman, Santa Rosa   Highway, Suite 202,
                                                              County                 Milton, FL 32583.
                                                              Commissioners, 6495
                                                              Caroline Street,
                                                              Suite M, Milton, FL
                                                              32570.
    Santa Rosa (FEMA Docket No.: B-  Unincorporated areas    The Honorable Jim      Building Inspections,  June 28, 2012...................       120274
     1252).                           of Santa Rosa County    Williamson,            6051 Old Bagdad
                                      (11-04-7400P).          Chairman, Santa Rosa   Highway, Suite 202,
                                                              County                 Milton, FL 32583.
                                                              Commissioners, 6495
                                                              Caroline Street,
                                                              Suite M, Milton, FL
                                                              32570.

Kentucky: Fayette (FEMA Docket No.:  Lexington-Fayette       The Honorable Jim      Division of Planning,  June 18, 2012...................       210067
 B-1252).                             Urban County            Gray, Mayor,           Current Planning
                                      Government (12-04-      Lexington-Fayette      Section, 101 East
                                      1259P).                 Urban County           Vine Street,
                                                              Government, 200 East   Lexington, KY 40507.
                                                              Main Street,
                                                              Lexington, KY 40507.
South Dakota: Lincoln (FEMA Docket   Town of Tea (11-08-     The Honorable John     City Hall, 600 East    June 18, 2012...................       460143
 No.: B-1252).                        0969P).                 Lawler, Mayor, Town    1st Street, Tea, SD
                                                              of Tea, P.O. Box       57064.
                                                              128, Tea, SD 57064.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

James A. Walke,
Acting Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of
Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2012-31344 Filed 12-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P