[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 170 (Wednesday, September 3, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52215-52220]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20947]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0622 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0124; FRL-9912-91]

Saflufenacil; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes and revises tolerances for
residues of saflufenacil in or on multiple commodities which are
identified and discussed later in this document. BASF Corporation
requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective September 3, 2014. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before November 3, 2014,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The dockets for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) numbers EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0622 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-
0124, are available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of
Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the
Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William
Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the OPP Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review
the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket
available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lois Rossi, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-
idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID numbers EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0622 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0124 in the
subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and
requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the
Hearing Clerk on or before November 3, 2014. Addresses for mail and
hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR
178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0622 and EPA-
HQ-OPP-2014-0124, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of October 25, 2013 (78 FR 63938) (FRL-
9901-96), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
3F8192) by BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Dr., P.O. Box 13528, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27709-3528. The petition requested that 40 CFR
180.649 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the
herbicide saflufenacil, 2-chloro-5-[3,6-dihydro-3-methyl-2,6-dioxo-4-
(trifluoromethyl)-1(2H)-pyrimidinyl]-4-fluoro-N-[[methyl(1-
methylethyl)amino]sulfonyl]benzamide, and its metabolites, N-[2-chloro-
5-(2,6-dioxo-4-(trifluoromethyl)-3,6-dihydro-1(2H)-pyrimidinyl)-4-
fluorobenzoyl]-N'-isopropylsulfamide and N-[4-chloro-2-fluoro-5-
({[(isopropylamino)sulfonyl]amino{time} carbonyl)phenyl]urea,
calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of saflufenacil, in or on
grass, forage at 15 parts per million (ppm); grass, hay at 20 ppm;
grass, seed screenings at 0.9 ppm; and grass, straw at 1.5 ppm and
revising the livestock commodity tolerances for (cattle, goat, horse,
and sheep): Fat from 0.01 ppm to 0.05 ppm; liver from 2.5 ppm to 45
ppm; and meat byproducts, except liver from 0.05 ppm to 0.5 ppm; hog,
fat from 0.01 ppm to 0.05 ppm; hog, liver from 0.80 ppm to 45 ppm; and
hog, meat byproducts, except liver from 0.02 ppm to 0.5 ppm.
    The same Federal Register document of October 25, 2013, also
announced

BASF Corporation's filing of a pesticide petition (PP 3F8185) that
requested 40 CFR 180.649 be amended by revising tolerances for
saflufenacil and its metabolites in or on barley, grain from 0.10 ppm
to 1.0 ppm; barley, straw from 0.10 ppm to 15.0 ppm; barley, bran from
0.10 ppm to 1.53 ppm; wheat, grain from 0.10 ppm to 0.6 ppm; and wheat,
straw from 0.10 ppm to 6.0 ppm, included under the existing tolerances
for ``Grain, cereal, group 15'' and ``Grain, cereal, forage, fodder and
straw group 16.'' In addition, BASF Corporation requested to amend the
existing commodity definition, ``Grain, cereal, forage, fodder and
straw group 16'' to ``Grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw, group
16, except barley, rice and wheat straw'' as well as amend the
commodity definition, ``Grain, cereal, group 15'' to ``Grain, cereal,
group 15, except barley and wheat.''
    Finally, in the Federal Register of February 25, 2014 (79 FR 10458)
(FRL-9906-77), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section
408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide
petition (PP 4F8229) by BASF Corporation. The petition requested that
40 CFR 180.649 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of
the herbicide saflufenacil, 2-chloro-5-[3,6-dihydro-3-methyl-2,6-dioxo-
4-(trifluoromethyl)-1(2H)-pyrimidinyl]-4-fluoro-N-[[methyl(1-
methylethyl)amino]sulfonyl]benzamide, and its metabolites, N-[2-chloro-
5-(2,6-dioxo-4-(trifluoromethyl)-3,6-dihydro-1(2H)-pyrimidinyl)-4-
fluorobenzoyl]-N'-isopropylsulfamide and N-[4-chloro-2-fluoro-5-
({[(isopropylamino)sulfonyl]amino{time} carbonyl)phenyl]urea,
calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of saflufenacil in or on
olive at 0.03 ppm. These documents referenced summaries of the
petitions prepared by BASF Corporation, the petitioner, which are
available in the dockets, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no
comments received in response to these notices of filings.
    Based upon review of the supporting data, EPA has made
modifications to the proposed tolerances which include:
    1. Rounding the proposed tolerance for barley, bran.
    2. Revising the commodity definition for crop group 16.
    3. Decreasing the proposed tolerances for grass, seed screenings
and grass, straw.
    4. Increasing the existing tolerance for residues in or on grain,
aspirated fractions.
    5. Making several changes to the proposed livestock tolerances.
    The reasons for these changes are explained in Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for saflufenacil, including
exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action.
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with saflufenacil
follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children. In the Federal Register of February 21, 2014 (79 FR 9861)
(FRL-9905-87), EPA published a final rule establishing tolerances for
residues of the herbicide saflufenacil and its metabolites in or on
sugarcane, fish, and shellfish commodities based on EPA's conclusion
that aggregate exposure to saflufenacil is safe for the general
population, including infants and children. Since that rulemaking,
there have been no additional tolerance actions for saflufenacil, nor
has the toxicity profile for saflufenacil changed. Specific information
on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by
saflufenacil, as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL)
and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity
studies are discussed in that rulemaking which can be found in the
docket under docket ID numbers EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0775 and EPA-HQ-OPP-
2013-0008.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which the NOAEL and the lowest dose at which the
LOAEL are identified. Uncertainty/safety factors (UFs) are used in
conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally
referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose
(RfD)--and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks,
the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree
of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of
an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more
information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization
and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm. A summary of the
toxicological endpoints for saflufenacil used for human risk assessment
is discussed in Unit III.B. of the February 21, 2014 Federal Register
final rule.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to saflufenacil, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing saflufenacil tolerances in 40
CFR 180.649. EPA assessed dietary exposures from saflufenacil in food
as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. Such effects were identified
for saflufenacil. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food

consumption information from the United States Department of
Agriculture National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We
Eat in America, (USDA NHANES/WWEIA, 2003-2008). As to residue levels in
food, EPA assumed 100 percent crop treated (PCT), Dietary Exposure
Evaluation Model (DEEM) 7.81 default processing factors, and tolerance-
level or higher (i.e., tolerance levels adjusted to take into account
metabolite levels) residues for all foods.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA NHANES/
WWEIA, 2003-2008. As to residue levels in food, EPA made the same
assumptions (adjusted tolerance-level residues and 100 PCT) as in the
acute dietary exposure assessment.
    iii. Cancer. As indicated in the February 21, 2014 Federal Register
final rule preamble for saflufenacil, EPA has concluded that
saflufenacil does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a
dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is
unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA did not use
anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the dietary assessment
for saflufenacil. Tolerance-level residues (or higher) and 100 PCT were
assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for saflufenacil in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of saflufenacil. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on the Tier 1 Rice Model and Tier II Pesticide Root Zone
Model Ground Water (PRZM GW), the estimated drinking water
concentrations (EDWCs) of saflufenacil for acute exposures are
estimated to be 133 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 69.2
ppb for ground water. Chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are
estimated to be 120 ppb for surface water and 51.5 ppb for ground
water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 133 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 120 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    Saflufenacil is not registered for any specific use patterns that
would result in residential exposure.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.'' EPA has not found
saflufenacil to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other
substances, and saflufenacil does not appear to produce a toxic
metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that saflufenacil does not
have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For
information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a
common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of
such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality
Protection Act Safety Factor (FQPA SF). In applying this provision, EPA
either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional
safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of
a different factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. Increased fetal
susceptibility was observed in the developmental toxicity studies in
the rat and rabbit and in the 2-generation reproduction study in the
rat. Developmental effects (decreased fetal body weights and increased
skeletal variations in rats and increased liver porphyrins in rabbits)
occurred at doses that were not maternally toxic in the developmental
studies, indicating increased quantitative susceptibility. In the 2-
generation reproductive toxicity study in rats, the reported offspring
effects were more severe than the maternal effects at the same dose
level, indicating evidence for increased qualitative susceptibility. An
increased number of stillborn pups, decreased viability and lactation
indices, decreased pre-weaning body weight and/or body-weight gain, and
changes in hematological parameters occurred at the same dose level as
maternal decrements in food intake, body weight, body-weight gain, and
changes in hematological parameters and organ weights indicative of
anemia.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for saflufenacil is complete.
    ii. There is no indication that saflufenacil is a neurotoxic
chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study
or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. The concern for increased susceptibility following prenatal or
postnatal exposure is low because clear NOAELs/LOAELs were established
for the developmental effects seen in rats and rabbits as well as for
the offspring effects seen in the 2-generation reproductive toxicity
study. Further, the dose-response relationship for the effects of
concern is also well characterized and being used for assessing risks.
None of the effects in the developmental or reproduction studies were
attributable to a single exposure and, therefore, are not of concern
for acute risk assessment. The chronic point of departure used for risk
assessment is protective of any developmental and offspring effects
observed in these studies.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to saflufenacil in drinking water. These assessments
will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by saflufenacil.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to saflufenacil will occupy <1% of the aPAD for infants less than 1-
year old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
saflufenacil from food and water will utilize 20% of the cPAD for
infants less than 1-year old, the population group receiving the
greatest exposure. There are no residential uses for saflufenacil.
    3. Short and intermediate-term risk. Short and intermediate-term
aggregate exposure takes into account short and intermediate-term
residential exposures plus chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background exposure level). Because there is no
short or intermediate-term residential exposure and chronic dietary
exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately protective
cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess short-
term risk), no further assessment of short or intermediate-term risk is
necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for
evaluating short-term risk for saflufenacil.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, saflufenacil is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
    5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to saflufenacil residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methods ``D0603/02'' and ``L0073/01'' (liquid
chromatography/mass spectroscopy/mass spectroscopy (LC-MS/MS)) are
available to enforce the tolerance expression. These methods may be
requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental
Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    There are MRLs established for residues of saflufenacil, measuring
the levels of the parent only and not residues of the metabolites, as
follows: 0.01 ppm in or on cereal grains, which includes barley, corn,
and wheat; 0.05 ppm for maize fodder (dry), sorghum straw and fodder,
dry; 0.05 ppm for barley straw and fodder, dry; 0.05 ppm for wheat
straw and fodder, dry; 0.01 mammalian fats (except milk fats), which
includes cattle, goat, hog, horse, and sheep; and 0.3 edible offal
mammalian, which includes cattle, goat, hog, horse, and sheep.
    Harmonization between the Codex MRLs for cereal grains and the U.S.
tolerances for barley, grain and wheat, grain and between the Codex MRL
for barley straw and fodder, dry and the U.S. tolerance for barley,
straw and between the Codex MRL for wheat straw and fodder, dry and the
U.S. tolerance for wheat, straw is not possible as the U.S. use pattern
(harvest-aide/burndown application) results in significantly higher
residues than the Codex use pattern (pre-emergence application). The
higher residues translate into higher residues of saflufenacil in
animal byproducts than are covered by the corresponding Codex MRLs for
livestock commodities under the Codex use pattern; therefore, U.S.
tolerances for livestock commodities cannot be harmonized with Codex
MRLs for corresponding livestock commodities.
    The U.S. tolerances for crop groups 15 and 16 are not harmonized
with the Codex MRLs for cereal grains and straw and fodder because the
compliance with the Codex MRLs involve measurement of residues of the
parent only and not the metabolites, whereas the U.S. tolerance
requires measurement of both, in order to be harmonized with Canadian
tolerances.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-for Tolerances

    EPA is making several revisions to the petitioned-for tolerances.
These include the following. First, the petitioned value for barley
bran is being rounded from 1.53 ppm to 1.5 ppm to be consistent with
the current Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) tolerance-calculation procedure. Second, the commodity
definition ``Grain, cereal, forage, fodder, and straw group 16 (except
barley, wheat and rice straw)'' is being revised to ``Grain, cereal,
forage, fodder and straw group 16 (except barley and wheat straw)'' as
the new use pattern (harvest aid/desiccant) was not proposed for rice.
Third, the petitioner requested tolerance values for grass straw and
seed screenings were based on data from trials in which the samples
were harvested at a significantly shorter preharvest interval (PHI)
than that listed on the label. Additional residue data reflecting the
actual PHI listed on the label showed lower residue levels; therefore,
the tolerance values for grass straw and seed screenings are being
decreased. Fourth, the existing tolerance of 10 ppm for residues in or
on grain, aspirated fractions is being increased to 50 ppm as a result
of the new tolerances for cereal grains and based on available residues
data. Finally, EPA is making several revisions to the proposed
livestock tolerances which include:
    1. Decreasing the proposed tolerances for cattle, goat, sheep, hog
and horse fat from 0.05 ppm to 0.04 ppm and meat byproducts (except
liver) from 0.05 ppm to 0.03 ppm.
    2. Increasing the tolerances proposed for cattle, goat, sheep and
horse liver from 45 ppm to 50 ppm.
    3. Decreasing the tolerance proposed for hog liver from 45 ppm to
2.0 ppm.
    4. Establishing tolerances for cattle, goat, sheep and horse meat
at 0.02 ppm.

    5. Retaining the currently established tolerances for hog, fat or
hog, meat byproducts (except liver), instead of increasing them as
requested.
    The tolerances being set for residues in livestock differ from the
petitioned-for tolerances due to differences in calculation methods of
the maximum reasonably balanced diets (MRBDs) with the results of the
ruminant feeding study. It also appears that the petitioner over-
estimated residues in hog commodities as a result of using the cattle
MRDB.

 V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of saflufenacil,
including its metabolites and degradates, as set forth in the
regulatory text. Compliance with the plant tolerances is to be
determined by measuring the sum of saflufenacil, 2-chloro-5-[3,6-
dihydro-3-methyl-2,6-dioxo-4-(trifluoromethyl)-1(2H)-pyrimidinyl]-4-
fluoro-N-[[methyl(1-methylethyl)amino]sulfonyl]benzamide, and its
metabolites N-[2-chloro-5-(2,6-dioxo-4-(trifluoromethyl)-3,6-dihydro-
1(2H)-pyrimidinyl)-4-fluorobenzoyl]-N'-isopropylsulfamide and N-[4-
chloro-2-fluoro-5-
({[(isopropylamino)sulfonyl]amino{time} carbonyl)phenyl]urea,
calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of saflufenacil. Compliance
with the livestock tolerances is to be determined by measuring only
saflufenacil, 2-chloro-5-[3,6-dioxo-4-(trifluoromethyl)-3,6-dihydro-
1(2H)-pyrimidinyl)-4-fluoro-N-[[methyl(1-
methylethyl)amino]sulfonyl]benzamide.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d)
in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has
been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule
is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain
any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or Tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 25, 2014.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. In Sec.  180.649:
0
a. Remove the commodities ``Grain, aspirated fractions,'' ``Grain,
cereal, forage, fodder and straw group 16,'' and ``Grain, cereal, group
15'' in the table in paragraph (a)(1).
0
b. Add alphabetically the following commodities to the table in
paragraph (a)(1).
0
c. Revise the following commodities in the table in paragraph (a)(2).
    The amendments read as follows:

Sec.  180.649  Saflufenacil; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *

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

                                * * * * *
Barley, bran............................................            1.5
Barley, grain...........................................            1.0
Barley, straw...........................................           15

                                * * * * *
Grain, aspirated grain fractions........................           50
Grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw group 16 (except            0.10
 barley and wheat straw)................................
Grain, cereal, group 15 (except barley and wheat grain).            0.03

                                * * * * *
Grass, forage...........................................           15
Grass, hay..............................................           20
Grass, seed screenings..................................            0.15
Grass, straw............................................            0.15

                                * * * * *
Olive...................................................            0.03

                                * * * * *
Wheat, grain............................................            0.60
Wheat, straw............................................            6.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (2) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Parts per
                        Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cattle, fat.............................................            0.04

Cattle, liver...........................................           50
Cattle, meat............................................            0.02
Cattle, meat byproducts, except liver...................            0.30

                                * * * * *
Goat, fat...............................................            0.04
Goat, liver.............................................           50
Goat, meat..............................................            0.02
Goat, meat byproducts, except liver.....................            0.30

                                * * * * *
Hog, liver..............................................            2.0

                                * * * * *
Horse, fat..............................................            0.04
Horse, liver............................................           50
Horse, meat.............................................            0.02
Horse, meat byproducts, except liver....................            0.30

                                * * * * *
Sheep, fat..............................................            0.04
Sheep, liver............................................           50
Sheep, meat.............................................            0.02
Sheep, meat byproducts, except liver....................            0.30
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-20947 Filed 9-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 236 (Tuesday, December 8, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79071-79072]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26924]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2020-0027-N-32]

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of information collection; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its
implementing regulations, this notice announces that FRA is forwarding
the Information Collection Requests (ICRs) abstracted below to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. These
ICRs describe the information collections and their expected burdens.
On September 16, 2020, FRA published a notice providing a 60-day period
for public comment on the ICRs.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before
January 7, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed ICRs
should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find the particular ICR by selecting
``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using
the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Hodan Wells, Information
Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad Safety, Regulatory
Analysis Division, Federal Railroad Administration, telephone (202)
493-0440, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its
implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to
issue two notices seeking public comment on information collection
activities before OMB may approve paperwork packages. See 44 U.S.C.
3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.8 through 1320.12. On September 16, 2020, FRA
published a 60-day notice in the Federal Register soliciting comment on
the ICRs for which it is now seeking OMB approval. See 85 FR 57932. FRA
received no comments in response to this notice.
    Before OMB decides whether to approve the proposed collections of
information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. Federal law
requires OMB to approve or disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and
60 days after the 30-day notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b)-(c); 5
CFR 1320.12(d); see also 60 FR 44978, 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. OMB
believes the 30-day notice informs the regulated community to file
relevant comments and affords the agency adequate time to digest public
comments before it renders a decision. 60 FR 44983, Aug. 29, 1995.
Therefore, respondents should submit their respective comments to OMB
within 30 days of publication to best ensure having their full effect.
    Comments are invited on the following ICRs regarding: (1) Whether
the information collection activities are necessary for FRA to properly
execute its functions, including whether the information will have
practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of
the information collection activities, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used to determine the estimates; (3) ways
for FRA to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
being collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of information
collection activities on the public, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
    The summaries below describe the ICRs that FRA will submit for OMB
clearance as the PRA requires:
    Title: Identification of Railroad Cars.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ FRA makes a revision to the title of OMB Control Number
2130-0506 (formerly titled Identification of Cars Moved in
Accordance with Order 13528).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OMB Control Number: 2130-0506.
    Abstract: The collection of information is associated with 49 CFR

232.3(d), formerly contained in Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC)
Order 13528. Paragraph (d)(3) of 49 CFR 232.3 conditionally excepts
certain export, industrial, and other cars not owned by a railroad from
part 232 compliance. It requires cars to be identified by a card
attached to each side of the equipment, signed by the shipper,
specifically noting that the car is being moved under the proper
authority. Railroads typically use carrier bad order forms or tags for
these purposes. These forms are readily available from all carrier
repair facilities. FRA estimates approximately 400 cars per year, each
bearing two forms or tags, are moved under this regulation.
    Type of Request: Extension without change of a currently approved
collection.
    Affected Public: Businesses.
    Form(s): N/A.
    Respondent Universe: 765 railroads.
    Frequency of Submission: On occasion.
    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 800.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 67 hours.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden Hour Dollar Cost Equivalent: $3,886.
    Title: U.S. Locational Requirement for Dispatching U.S. Rail
Operations.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0556.
    Abstract: Title 49 CFR part 241 requires, in the absence of a
waiver, that all dispatching of railroad operations occurring in the
United States be performed in the United States. A railroad may,
however, conduct dispatching from a country other than the United
States in an emergency situation, but only for the duration of the
emergency situation. See 49 CFR 241.9(c). A railroad relying on this
exception must provide written notification of its action to FRA as
soon as practicable; such notification is not required before
addressing the emergency situation. The information collected under
this rule is used as part of FRA's oversight function to ensure that
extraterritorial dispatchers comply with applicable safety regulations.
    Type of Request: Extension without change of a currently approved
collection.
    Affected Public: Businesses.
    Form(s): N/A.
    Respondent Universe: 4 railroads.
    Frequency of Submission: On occasion.
    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 1.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 8 hours.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden Hour Dollar Cost Equivalent: $616.
    Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b) and 1320.8(b)(3)(vi),
FRA informs all interested parties that a respondent is not required to
respond to, conduct, or sponsor a collection of information that does
not display a currently valid OMB control number.

    Authority:  44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

Brett A. Jortland,
Deputy Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2020-26924 Filed 12-7-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 26, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 89004-89005]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28322]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Final Action of Waiver With Respect to Land; Coleman A.
Young Municipal Airport, Detroit, MI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is providing notice of a release of Federal
obligations for one land parcel at Coleman A. Young Municipal Airport,
Detroit, Michigan.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Georgina McDonald, Program Manager,
Federal Aviation Administration, Detroit Airports District Office,
11677 S Wayne Rd., Romulus, MI 48174-1412. Telephone Number: (734) 229-
2900/FAX Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The City of Detroit, Airport Sponsor of the
Coleman A. Young Municipal Airport has requested a release of all FAA
obligations for 34.21 acres of property that was previously owned by
the airport. The subject parcel, identified as Parcel 16, was included
in a property exchange brokered by the City of Detroit and disposed of
without FAA authorization in 2019.
    Parcel 16 was acquired by the Airport Sponsor on September 19, 1993
and was funded in part under Federal Airport Improvement Program (AIP)
Grant numbers 3-26-0027-1089 in June 1994 and 3-26-0027-0888 in June
1997. On June 26, 2001, the FAA released the obligations on 23.00 acres
of the 34.21-acre Parcel 16 to be leased for industrial development.
The remaining 11.21 acres of Parcel 16 is located west of French Road,
outside the airport operation area fence and is not needed for
aeronautical purposes. It is entirely paved and its existing and
proposed future use is for commercial vehicle parking. The FAA has
confirmed that the Airport Sponsor has received fair market value for
the sale of Parcel 16.
    The FAA has confirmed the disposition of proceeds from the sale of
the airport property were in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 47107(c)(2)(B)
and FAA's Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue,
published in the Federal Register on February 16, 1999 (64 FR 7696).
    In accordance with section 125 of The Wendell H. Ford Aviation
Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21) the FAA is
providing notice that the FAA is releasing the subject airport property
described below at the Coleman A. Young Municipal Airport, Detroit,
Michigan, from federal obligations.
    The subject property is described as: All that part of Fractional
Section 5, T.1 S., R. 12E., City of Detroit, Wayne County, Michigan,
described as part of Lots 2 and 7, all of lots 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Engel's
Subdivision as recorded in Liber 11 of Plats, Page 73, Wayne County
Records, also lots 154 through 197, both inclusive, except for the
North 12' thereof of Bolton Subdivision as recorded in Liber 37 of
Plats, Page 36, Wayne County Records, also Lots 237 through 249, both
inclusive, except for the North 12' thereof of Bolton No. 1 Subdivision
as recorded in Liber 39 of Plats, Page 29, Wayne County Records, also
Lot 16 of Leander Rivard Farm Subdivision as recorded in Liber 28 of
Plats, Page 4, Wayne County, Michigan, also all that part of vacated
Molena Ave., 30 ft. wide, lying adjacent to and Southerly of said Lots
154 through 197, and Lots 237-249, vacated Gilbo Ave., 50 ft. wide,
lying adjacent to and between said Lots 175 and 176, and the vacated
Public Alley adjacent to said Lot 16, being more particularly described
as: Beginning at the intersection of the Southerly line of Molena Ave.,
30 ft. wide, with the Westerly Line of French Road, 36 ft. wide; thence
S 35[deg]48'23'' E. 66.97 ft. along the Westerly Line of said French

Road; thence S 63[deg]34'25'' W. 1,000.00 ft.; thence S 26[deg]04'30''
E. 325.79 ft.; thence S 38[deg]16'30'' W, 114.92 ft.; thence 206.23 ft.
along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 446.34 ft.,
chord bearing and distance of S 50[deg]56'38'' W. 204.55 ft.; thence S
26[deg]21'30'' E. 22.00 ft.; thence S 63[deg]38'30'' W. 1,444.27 ft.
along the Northerly Line of Madola Ave., 50 ft. wide; thence N
26[deg]10'30'' W. 353.43 ft.; thence N 63[deg]31'20'' E. 410.29 ft.;
thence N 27[deg]20'38 W. 159.12 ft.; thence N 34[deg]47'45'' W. 182.05
ft.; thence N 63[deg]43'15'' E. 1,043.73 ft.; thence N 59[deg]10'42''
E. 50.00 ft.; thence N 63[deg]43'15'' E. 690.96 ft.; thence N
30[deg]14'46'' W. 418.41 ft.; thence N 63[deg]52'55'' E. 299.58 ft.
along the Southerly Line of Leander Ave., 50 ft. wide; thence the
following two courses and distances alone the Westerly line of said
French Rd.: S 33[deg]05'35'' E. 413.10 ft.; and S 35[deg]48'23'' E.
194.85 ft. to the point of beginning.
    This release does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to
financially assist in the disposal of the subject airport property nor
a determination of eligibility for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA.

    Issued in Romulus, Michigan, on December 19, 2023.
Stephanie R. Swann,
Deputy Manager, Detroit Airports District Office, FAA, Great Lakes
Region.
[FR Doc. 2023-28322 Filed 12-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 8, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26998-27001]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11025]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0428; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-078-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus Model A330-243, -243F, -342, and -343 airplanes. This proposed
AD was prompted by reports of cracking of air intake cowls on Rolls-
Royce Trent engines, worn and detached attachment links, and fractured
thermal anti-ice (TAI) piccolo tubes. This proposed AD would require
inspecting piccolo tubes, piccolo tube mount links, the aft side of the
forward bulkhead, and outer boundary angles (OBA) for cracks,
fractures, and broken links, and corrective actions if necessary. We
are proposing this AD to prevent degraded structural integrity of the
engine nose cowl and a broken piccolo tube, which could lead to in-
flight damage of the engine and reduced thermal anti-ice performance.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 22, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For Airbus service information identified in this proposed AD,
contact Airbus SAS--Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax
+33 5 61 93 45 80; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet
http://www.airbus.com. For Rolls-Royce service information identified
in this proposed AD, contact Rolls-Royce Plc, Technical Publications,
P.O. Box 31, Derby, DE24 8BJ, United Kingdom; telephone 44 (0) 1332
245882; fax 44 (0) 1332 249936; Internet http://www.Rolls-Royce.com.
You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1138; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2012-0428;
Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-078-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2011-0062, dated April 4, 2011 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    During shop visit, several primary assembly structures of A330
aeroplanes Trent 700 [engine] air intake cowl have been found with
cracks in the forward bulkhead web, web stiffeners and outer
boundary angles. Several attachment links have been found severely
worn, and some had become detached. In 2 cases, the Thermal Anti Ice
(TAI) Piccolo tube was found fractured. Investigations are still
ongoing to determine the root cause(s).
    If not detected and corrected, a broken Piccolo tube in
conjunction with forward bulkhead damage could ultimately lead to in
flight detachment of the outer barrel, which would constitute an
unsafe condition.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires to perform
inspections of RR [Rolls-Royce] Trent 700 [engine] nose cowls and,
depending on findings, to do the applicable corrective action(s).
These inspections include internal inspection of Piccolo tube,
detailed inspection of Piccolo

tube mount links, [boroscope] inspection of aft side of forward
bulkhead and outer boundary angle [for cracks, fractures and broken
links].

The degraded structural integrity of the engine nose cowl and a broken
piccolo tube could lead to in-flight damage of the engine and reduced
thermal anti-ice performance. The corrective action is specified as
replacing the affected engine air intake cowl with a new or serviceable
cowl. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the
AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Airbus has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-71-3025,
including Appendices 01 and 02, dated January 10, 2011. Rolls-Royce has
issued Service Bulletin RB.211-71-AG416, including Appendix 1, dated
September 3, 2010. The actions described in this service information
are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
The interval for repetitive inspections of the OBA is between 450
flight cycles and 5,000 flight cycles depending on crack length; and
the interval for the repetitive inspections of the forward bulkhead is
between 400 flight cycles and 5,000 flight cycles depending on crack
length.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    Figure A-FBBAA--Sheet 03 Flow Chart of Airbus Mandatory Service
Bulletin A330-71-3025, including Appendix 01, excluding Appendix 02,
dated January 10, 2011, specifies certain actions based on inspection
findings of OBA cracking greater than 22 inches or bulkhead cracking
greater than 13 inches. This proposed AD specifies the actions to be
done for OBA cracking of 22 inches or greater and bulkhead cracking of
13 inches or greater.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 14 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 10 work-hours per engine to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per
work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed
AD on U.S. operators to be $11,900 per engine, or $850 per engine.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 16 work-hours per engine for a cost of $1,360 per engine. We
have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
material cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this
proposed AD. We have no way of determining the number of products that
may need these actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this 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. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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

    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]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2012-0428; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-
078-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 22, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A330-243, -243F, -341, -342, and
-343 airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 71; Engine.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracking of air intake cowls
on Rolls-Royce Trent engines, worn and detached attachment links,
and fractured thermal anti-ice (TAI) piccolo tubes. We are issuing
this AD to prevent degraded structural integrity of the engine nose
cowl and a broken piccolo tube, which could lead to in-flight damage
of the engine and reduced thermal anti-ice performance.

(f) Compliance

    You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD
performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions
have already been done.

(g) Piccolo Tube Inspection

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2)
of this AD, do a boroscope inspection of each air intake cowl
assembly of each engine to detect cracked or fractured piccolo
tubes, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus
Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-71-3025,

including Appendix 01, excluding Appendix 02, dated January 10,
2011. If any cracked or fractured piccolo tube is found: Before
further flight, replace the affected engine air intake cowl with a
new or serviceable cowl, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-71-3025,
including Appendix 01, excluding Appendix 02, dated January 10,
2011.
    (1) For any air intake cowl that has accumulated fewer than
5,000 flight cycles since its first installation on an airplane as
of the effective date of this AD: Inspect within 24 months after the
air intake cowl has accumulated 5,000 total flight cycles.
    (2) For any air intake cowl that has accumulated 5,000 or more
flight cycles since its first installation on an airplane as of the
effective date of this AD: Inspect within 24 months after the
effective date of this AD.

(h) Piccolo Link Inspection

    If the inspection findings of paragraph (g) of this AD indicate
no cracked or fractured piccolo tube: Before further flight, do a
boroscope inspection of the piccolo tube links to detect broken
links, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus
Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-71-3025, including Appendix 01,
excluding Appendix 02, dated January 10, 2011. If no broken links
are found: Before further flight, do the actions required by
paragraph (i) of this AD.
    (1) If 4 or more broken piccolo tube links are found: Before
further flight, replace the affected engine air intake cowl with a
new or serviceable cowl, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-71-3025,
including Appendix 01, excluding Appendix 02, dated January 10,
2011.
    (2) If 3 or fewer broken piccolo tube links are found and the
opposite intake cowl of the same engine has accumulated 5,000 flight
cycles or less since the cowl was first installed on an airplane:
Before further flight, do the actions in Figure A-FBBAA-Sheet 03
Flow Chart of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-71-3025,
including Appendix 01, excluding Appendix 02, dated January 10,
2011, as required by paragraph (i) of this AD.
    (3) If 3 or fewer broken piccolo tube links are found and the
opposite intake cowl of the same engine has accumulated more than
5,000 total flight cycles since the cowl was first installed on an
airplane: Before further flight, do a boroscope inspection of the
piccolo tube links of the opposite intake cowl side to detect broken
links, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus
Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-71-3025, including Appendix 01,
excluding Appendix 02, dated January 10, 2011.
    (i) If the inspection findings of the piccolo tube links of the
opposite intake cowl side indicate no broken piccolo tube links:
Before further flight, do the actions required by paragraph (i) of
this AD, ``Repetitive Outer Boundary Angle and Forward Bulkhead
Inspection.''
    (ii) If the inspection findings of the piccolo tube links of the
opposite intake cowl side indicate 1 or more broken piccolo tube
links: Before further flight, do the actions specified in Note 01 of
Figure A-FBBAA--Sheet 02 Flow Chart of Airbus Mandatory Service
Bulletin A330-71-3025, including Appendix 01, excluding Appendix 02,
dated January 10, 2011, at the time specified in Note 01 of Figure
A-FBBAA--Sheet 02 Flow Chart of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin
A330-71-3025, including Appendix 01, excluding Appendix 02, dated
January 10, 2011, except for the instructions to ``See Sheet 03''.
Where Note 01 of Figure A-FBBAA--Sheet 02 Flow Chart of Airbus
Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-71-3025, including Appendix 01,
excluding Appendix 02, dated January 10, 2011, specifies to ``See
Sheet 03'' to do a detailed inspection of the outer boundary angle
(OBA) and bulkhead as specified in Rolls-Royce Service Bulletin
RB211-71-AG416, excluding Appendix 1, dated September 3, 2010: This
AD requires the detailed inspection specified in Figure A-FBBAA--
Sheet 03 Flow Chart of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-71-
3025, including Appendix 01, excluding Appendix 02, dated January
10, 2011, to be done in accordance with paragraph (i) of this AD.

(i) Repetitive Outer Boundary Angle and Forward Bulkhead Inspection

    If the results of the inspection required by paragraph (h) of
this AD indicate no broken piccolo tube links, or if the
requirements in paragraph (h)(2) or (h)(3)(ii) of this AD specify to
do the actions in Figure A-FBBAA--Sheet 03 Flow Chart of Airbus
Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-71-3025, including Appendix 01,
excluding Appendix 02, dated January 10, 2011: Before further
flight, do a boroscope inspection of the OBA and forward bulkhead to
detect cracks or fractures, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-71-3025,
including Appendix 01, excluding Appendix 02, dated January 10,
2011; and the Accomplishment Instructions of Rolls-Royce Service
Bulletin RB.211-71-AG416, excluding Appendix 1, dated September 3,
2010.
    (1) If the findings of the inspection are within the allowable
damage limit, as specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of
Rolls-Royce Service Bulletin RB.211-71-AG416, excluding Appendix 1,
dated September 3, 2010: Do the actions in paragraphs (i)(1)(i) and
(i)(1)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Repeat the inspection of the OBA and forward bulkhead
thereafter at the repeat interval specified in Part 3.B. of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Rolls-Royce Service Bulletin RB.211-
71-AG416, excluding Appendix 1, dated September 3, 2010.
    (ii) Repeat the inspections specified in paragraphs (g) and (h)
of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 2,500 flight
cycles.
    (2) If the findings of the inspection are not within the
allowable damage limit, as specified in the Accomplishment
Instructions of Rolls-Royce Service Bulletin RB.211-71-AG416,
excluding Appendix 1, dated September 3, 2010: Do the actions in
paragraphs (i)(2)(i) and (i)(2)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) If any OBA crack is 22 inches or greater, or any forward
bulkhead crack is 13 inches or greater: Before further flight,
replace the affected engine air intake cowl with a new or
serviceable cowl, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions
of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-71-3025, including
Appendix 01, excluding Appendix 2, dated January 10, 2011.
    (ii) If any OBA crack is 15 inches or greater, but less than 22
inches, or any forward bulkhead crack is 9 inches or greater, but
less than 13 inches: Within 100 flight cycles, replace the affected
engine air intake cowl with a new or serviceable cowl, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service
Bulletin A330-71-3025, including Appendix 01, excluding Appendix 02,
dated January 10, 2011.

(j) Repetitive Inspections for Replaced Engine Air Intake Cowl

    If any engine air intake cowl is replaced in accordance with the
requirements of this AD with a cowl that has less than 5,000 flight
cycles since the cowl was first installed on an airplane: Repeat the
inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD thereafter at the
compliance time specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.
    (1) If any engine air intake cowl is replaced in accordance with
the requirements of this AD with a cowl with 5,000 flight cycles or
more since the cowl was first installed on an airplane: Repeat the
inspections required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD thereafter
at intervals not to exceed 2,500 flight cycles.
    (2) If any engine air intake cowl is replaced in accordance with
the requirements of this AD with a cowl with 5,000 flight cycles or
more since the cowl was first installed on an airplane: Repeat the
inspections required by paragraph (i) of this AD thereafter at the
intervals specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Rolls-
Royce Service Bulletin RB.211-71-AG416, excluding Appendix 1, dated
September 3, 2010.

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Vladimir
Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from

a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-
approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are
approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated
agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before
it is returned to service.

(l) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
Directive 2011-0062, dated April 4, 2011; Airbus Mandatory Service
Bulletin A330-71-3025, including Appendix 01, excluding Appendix 02,
dated January 10, 2011; and Rolls-Royce Service Bulletin RB.211-71-
AG416, excluding Appendix 1, dated September 3, 2010; for related
information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 29, 2012.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.

[FR Doc. 2012-11025 Filed 5-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 185 (Wednesday, September 23, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59782-59783]
[FR Doc No: 2020-20982]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 15034-000]

Kinetic Power, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

    On June 1, 2020, the Kinetic Power LLC, filed an application for a
preliminary permit, and amended on June 25, 2020, pursuant to section
4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility
of Beclabito Hydroelectric Energy Storage Center Project to be located
about 20 miles west of Shiprock, New Mexico. The sole purpose of a
preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority
to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary
permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-
disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by
others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would be located entirely on Navajo Nation
lands

extending across the Arizona-New Mexico State border, consist of the
following new facilities: (1) A 1,333-foot-long, 542-foot-high earthen
rock fill dam (Upper Reservoir) with a surface area of 392 acres; and a
total storage capacity of 35,043 acre-feet at a normal maximum
operating elevation of 8,970 feet average mean sea level (msl); (2) a
1,134-foot-long, 166-foot-high earthen rock fill dam (Lower Reservoir)
with a surface area of 534 acres, and a total storage capacity of
36,209 acre-feet at a normal maximum operating elevation of 5,656 feet
average msl; (3) two 300-foot-long, 23-foot-diameter penstocks shafts;
two 2,841-foot penstock vertical shafts; six 250-foot draft tube; and
one 15,880-foot horizontal headrace tunnel with 16-foot diameter; (4) a
300-foot-long, 75-foot-wide, 160-foot-high reinforced concrete
powerhouse housing six 250-megawatt fixed turbines generators; up to
two 150-megawatt turbines with variable speed machines; (5) four
24,788-foot-long low pressure tailrace tunnels; (6) a 59,664-foot-long
water source pipeline connecting the water pumping station located at
the San Juan River to the Lower Reservoir for initial fill and make-up
water; (7) two new double circuit 500-kilovolt (kV) electric
transmission lines that connect the project switchyard to the propose
existing uprates 500-kV transmission lines, and (8) appurtenant
facilities. The estimated annual power generation at the Beclabito
Energy Storage Center Project would be 2,628 gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Thomas Conroy, Co-Founder, Kinetic Power,
LLC. Post Office Box 32482, Santa Fe, NM 87506,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    FERC Contact: Ousmane Sidibe; Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing.
Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/FERCOnline.aspx. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/QuickComment.aspx. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a paper copy.
Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via
any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville,
Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, more information about this project, including a copy
of the application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link
of Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-15034) in the docket number
field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online
Support.

    Dated: September 17, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-20982 Filed 9-22-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


memorandum Date: May 20, 2004 Subject: Review of Medium Design Flow Phase III Facilities ( 100 to 250 mgd) For Hydropower Water Use and Confirmation That Cooling Water Component is Greater Than 25%

This memo is a follow up to my May 13, 2004 memo. Both memos summarized the results of reviewing the survey responses of facilities with high design influent flows ( DIF) with the May 13 memo covering Phase III facilities with DIFs greater than 250 mgd and this memo covering Phase III facilities with DIFs ranging from 100 to 250 mgd. The surveys were reviewed to determine whether any of them utilize all or a portion of the flow for hydropower generation and to confirm their in scope status with respect to whether the cooling water component was 25% or greater. Both the Phase III universe and design intake flow ( DIF) databases from October 29, 2003 and a more recent version from May 14, 2004 were used. Note that the more recent database did not include facilities [ names removed for CBI] but were still included in this analysis. The database notes that these incomplete survey facilities had been removed on November 21,2003. For all facilities with DIF flows from 100 to 250 mgd, the answers to the survey technical questions concerning flow and cooling water components were obtained and compared with the flow schematics for water use. The table below summarizes the results. In reviewing the 25% cooling water criterion, if the aggregate response to Q3( h) was not > 25%, then the flow diagram and average intake flow data ( Q25) were checked to see if it was apparent that Q3( h) was based on the DIF and that low values reflect underutilization of the intake capacity. Where the cooling component was < 25% of DIF but > 25% of the average intake flow ( AIF) are so noted. The table also identifies any instances where cooling water reuse may impact the determination of % cooling water use. Note none of the Phase III facilities in the 100 to 250 mgd range use intake water for hydropower purposes.

[ Table deleted for CBI reasons]


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 197 (Tuesday, October 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61403-61404]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25916]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:
    Docket Numbers: EG16-2-000.
    Applicants: CID Solar, LLC.
    Description: Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator
Status of CID Solar, LLC.
    Filed Date: 10/5/15.
    Accession Number: 20151005-5298.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: EG16-3-000.
    Applicants: Cottonwood Solar, LLC.
    Description: Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator
Status of Cottonwood Solar, LLC.
    Filed Date: 10/5/15.
    Accession Number: 20151005-5302.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER16-21-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: First Revised Service
Agreement No. 4083; Queue Y3-058 (WMPA) to be effective 9/16/2015.
    Filed Date: 10/5/15.
    Accession Number: 20151005-5272.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-22-000.
    Applicants: Michigan Electric Transmission Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Filing of Second Amended and
Restated Service Agreement to be effective 12/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 10/5/15.
    Accession Number: 20151005-5308.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-23-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: PowerSouth NITSA Amendment
Filing (Add Ray Delivery Point) to be effective 9/16/2015.
    Filed Date: 10/5/15.
    Accession Number: 20151005-5319.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-24-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: First Revised WMPA Service
Agreement No. 3688, Queue No. Y2-117 to be effective 9/8/2015.
    Filed Date: 10/5/15.
    Accession Number: 20151005-5330.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-25-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Ministerial Filing to
Incorporate Order 760 Language to be effective 3/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 10/5/15.
    Accession Number: 20151005-5337.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15.

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

    Dated: October 5, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-25916 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 141 (Wednesday, July 23, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 42786]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17301]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL14-73-000]

The Empire District Electric Company; Notice of Institution of
Section 206 Proceeding and Refund Effective Date

    On July 17, 2014, the Commission issued an order in Docket No.
EL14-73-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16
U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation into the justness and
reasonableness of The Empire District Electric Company's formula rate
protocols under the Empire Open Access Transmission, Energy and
Operating Reserve Markets Tariff, and Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Open
Access Transmission Tariff. The Empire District Electric Company, 148
FERC ] 61,030 (2014).
    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL14-73-000, established
pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication
of this notice in the Federal Register.

    Dated: July 17, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-17301 Filed 7-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 21, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28238-28240]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12936]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2017-0277]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Dunkirk Lakeshore Air Show; Lake Erie, Dunkirk, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on
Lake Erie, Dunkirk, NY. This safety zone is intended to restrict
vessels from a portion of Lake Erie during the Dunkirk Lakeshore Air
Show on July 1, 2017 and July 2, 2017. This temporary safety zone is
necessary to protect participants, spectators, and vessels from the
hazards associated with aerial stunts, low flying aircraft, and
aircraft maneuvers. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is
prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port
Buffalo (COTP).

DATES: This rule is effective from 12:45 p.m. on July 1, 2017, to 5:15
p.m. on July 2, 2017.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2017-0277 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email LT Michael Collet, Chief of
Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone 716-
843-9322, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Pub. L. Public Law
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency finds good cause that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that
good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be
impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The final details
for this event were not provided to the Coast Guard until there was
insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus,
delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period
to run would be both impracticable and contrary to the public interest
because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect
spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with an air show
over a navigable waterway.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register because doing so would be
impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Delaying the
effective date would be contrary to the rule's objectives of ensuring
safety of life on the navigable waters and protection of persons and
vessels near the event.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard issues this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.
On July 1, 2017 and July 2, 2017, between 12:45 p.m. and 5:15 p.m. each
day, an air show will be held on the shoreline of Lake Erie in Dunkirk,
NY. It is anticipated that there will be a heavy amount of recreational
boating traffic present to view the air show. The Captain of the Port
Buffalo has determined that potential hazards associated with an air
show over a navigable waterway pose a significant risk to public safety
and property within the immediate location of the show.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 12:45 p.m. to 5:15 p.m. on
July 1, 2017 and July 2, 2017. The safety zone will encompass all
waters of Lake Erie;

Dunkirk, NY starting at position 42[deg]29'22'' N. and 079[deg]20'30''
W. then Northwest to 42[deg]29'37'' N. and 079[deg]20'41'' W. then
Northeast to position 42[deg]30'11'' N. and 079[deg]19'23'' W. then
Southeast to position 42[deg]30'05'' N. and 079[deg]19'08'' W. and then
following the shoreline and breakwall to the point of origin (NAD 83).
The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of spectators
and vessels during the Dunkirk Lakeshore Air Show. No vessel or person
will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission
from the COTP or a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (``Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs''), directs agencies to
reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that ``for
every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be
identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be
prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.''
    This rule has not been designated a ``significant regulatory
action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
    As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is
exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's
Memorandum titled ``Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the
Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs' '' (February 2, 2017).
    We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action
because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy,
will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the
budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel
legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be
relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the
safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters.
Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to
transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that
particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions,
moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when
permitted by the Captain of the Port.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that it
is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule establishes a temporary safety zone. It is categorically excluded
under section 2.B.2, figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g) of the

Instruction, which pertains to establishment of safety zones. A Record
of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated in the ADDRESSES section of
this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0277 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0277   Safety Zone; Dunkirk Lakeshore Air Show; Lake
Erie, Dunkirk, NY.

    (a) Location. This zone will encompass all waters of Lake Erie;
Dunkirk, NY starting at position 42[deg]29'22'' N. and 079[deg]20'30''
W. then Northwest to 42[deg]29'37'' N. and 079[deg]20'41'' W. then
Northeast to position 42[deg]30'11'' N. and 079[deg]19'23'' W. then
Southeast to position 42[deg]30'05'' N. and 079[deg]19'08'' W. and then
following the shoreline and breakwall to the point of origin (NAD 83).
    (b) Enforcement period. This regulation will be enforced from 12:45
p.m. until 5:15 p.m. on July 1, 2017 and July 2, 2017.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within
this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-
scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port
Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who
has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his
behalf.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone must contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene
representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port
Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel
16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety
zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of
the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.

    Dated: June 13, 2017.
J.S. Dufresne,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2017-12936 Filed 6-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P