Summary of Public Comments on the Public Participation Process List of Commentors:

$ Aventis ( AV)

$ California Citrus Quality Council ( CCQC)

$ Consumers Union ( CU)

$ Implementation Working Group ( IWG)

$ National Agricultural Aviation Association ( NAAA)

$ Natural Resources Defense Council ( NRDC)

$ North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation ( NC FBF)

$ Oklahoma State University Cooperative Extension Service ( OSU)

$ Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Health Canada ( PMRA)

$ Weed Science Society of America ( WSSA)

The following responded but provided comments about TRAC, not the proposed public participation process:

$ National Alliance of Independent Crop Consultants ( NAICC)

$ New England Fruit Consultants ( NEFC) 2 I. General Comments About the Public Participation Process A. Questions, Concerns and Suggestions 1. One commentor requested that the public participation process be subject to open discussion and sign off by the stakeholder committee that will replace the Tolerance Reassessment and Advisory Committee ( TRAC).

EPA's Response: EPA and USDA have worked with the Committee to Advise on Reassessment and Transition ( CARAT) to discuss how to effectively use the public participation process to its fullest potential. ( CARAT is the new stakeholder committee created in June 2000, which was established by EPA and USDA after the final TRAC meeting in October 1999.)

2. One commentor believes that EPA has a responsibility to hold a public meeting on the interim public participation process prior to the issuance of the final Federal Register notice on the full public participation process to discuss EPA's findings, decisions, and plan of action regarding the interim process.

EPA's Response: EPA and USDA do not believe a public meeting is necessary because the interim process has been well explained, and applied to many pesticide decisions. EPA has provided descriptions of the interim process on its website and in the Federal Register notices announcing the public availability of risk assessments and related documents for pesticides that used the interim process. The information provided on the website and in the Federal Register notices should have sufficiently described the interim process, but if an individual needed additional information, the notices identified EPA contact persons who could provide clarification.

3. One commentor states that a safeguard appeals provision is needed for " stakeholders who feel that they have been excluded from the process or that the process has not been followed in good faith."

EPA's Response: EPA and USDA are making a significant effort to involve all interested stakeholders in the public participation process, and have an " open door" policy for communication with all stakeholders. Stakeholders have opportunities during and after the process to raise concerns, therefore, a formal appeals process is not warranted.

4. Two commentors asked about the specific obligations and responsibilities under FQPA of the other Federal government agencies mentioned in the proposed public participation process ( USDA, FDA, HHS) and whether memoranda of understandings are in place among these agencies and EPA regarding the work to 3 be accomplished.

EPA's Response: EPA, USDA, FDA, and CDC/ HHS are actively discussing roles and responsibilities under FQPA and the public participation process. Memoranda of Understanding may be used in the future to formally establish partnerships but have not been determined to be needed at this time.

5. One commentor suggested the establishment of an ombudsman's office that would be responsible for assisting stakeholders as they work to participate in the public participation process. An ombudsman's office could " lead to a more dynamic, interactive exchange between the agencies and stakeholders, and ultimately lead to more inclusive and rational decisions."

EPA's Response: EPA appreciates this suggestion and is considering ways to ensure that this important communication function is accommodated.

6. Three commentors stated that comments received from other Federal government agencies must be recorded and made available in the public docket, as well as EPA's response to those comments.

EPA's Response: EPA agrees that any formal comments received from other Federal government agencies should be part of the docket for that pesticide.

7. Canada's Pesticide Management Regulatory Agency wants to be considered as if it were a U. S. Federal government agency. They are requesting the same review privileges that are now afforded to USDA.

EPA's Response: EPA welcomes opportunities to work with Canada on pesticide issues including risk assessment and risk management harmonization. The Agency also has undertaken a number of joint reviews with Canada. These efforts are expected to continue where there is mutual interest and benefit.

8. On commentor felt that the proposed public participation process should be promulgated by rulemaking because of its " implied air of legal, binding obligation," and suggested that future programs, such as those that might be needed for registration review, should use this public participation process.

EPA's Response: EPA believes it is not necessary or appropriate to codify the public participation process through rulemaking.

9. One commentor wants a process adopted for peer review of the " science policies, models, and assumptions" that are generally applied to risk assessments ( i. e., general tools). 4 EPA's Response: EPA does rely on established peer review processes for the development of science polices, methodologies, and models, including the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel ( SAP).

10. Two commentors suggested that the proposed public participation process needs to be flexible to accommodate the level of complexity associated with each pesticide. One commentor stated that the phases' timeframes should be lengthened based on experience under the pilot public participation process. The commentor stated, " If timeframes are routinely exceeded or extended because of circumstances that are in fact foreseeable, it makes more sense to establish realistic timeframes up front, rather then risk erosion of public confidence in the process." The process could be abbreviated for less complicated pesticides. One commentor requested that specific process modification criteria be established, such as " the number of acres treated and the number of crops and geographical areas involved", and the public should be notified of chemical specific process changes.

Two commentors strongly recommended against adopting the full public participation process. One commentor stated that the full process " would lock EPA into a lengthy, regimented procedure that will be unnecessary in many cases, while delaying the decisionmaking process in the few cases that will generate significant risk mitigation challenges." The other commentor strongly urged the Agency to adopt a modified version of the streamlined interim process ( which was designed for those non organophosphates undergoing tolerance reassessment and reregistration in 2000), asserting that the shorter timeframes would allow EPA to meet the tolerance reassessment deadlines established in FQPA.

EPA's Response: EPA agrees that the proposed public participation process needs to be flexible. In the proposal, the Agency anticipated that modifications to the public participation process would be appropriate for pesticides with limited use and usage, low risk concerns, a small number of users, or other factors. The final process includes both full and modified versions, recognizing that less process is appropriate for pesticides requiring less, or no, risk mitigation. The Agency believes a case by case approach is best for determining which pesticides will undergo a modified process rather than establish specific criteria. EPA will inform the public of modifications to the public participation process that are warranted for a pesticide. In addition, EPA plans to continue to meet the tolerance reassessment deadlines established by FQPA. In August 1999, EPA met the first statutory deadline by reassessing greater than 33 percent of existing pesticide tolerances. In August 2002, the Agency met the second deadline, completing more than 66 percent of all required tolerance reassessment decisions. EPA is committed to meeting the final statutory deadline and completing 100 percent of all required tolerance reassessment decisions by August 3, 2006. 5 11. One commentor expressed concern that risk management decisions for a pesticide could be made prior to the completion of the public participation process. Existing statutory mechanisms should be utilized for addressing unacceptable risks associated with pesticide product uses, such as the emergency suspension process, rather than create a mechanism as part of the public participation process. On the other hand, two commentors stressed that EPA must continue to reserve its authority to improve the effectiveness of risk mitigation and comply with FQPA, and ensure that stakeholders are given adequate notice that action is being taken.

EPA's Response: EPA reaffirms its intention to issue risk management decisions on certain uses of a pesticide at any time before or during the public participation process if such action is warranted by high risk levels identified in the risk assessments. EPA is bound by statute to make such decisions and take action when it is warranted. EPA is not adding a mechanism to the public participation process when it utilizes the tools and processes established by statute to achieve this type of action. While EPA may exercise this authority at any time during this process, the Agency will continue to ensure that stakeholders and other Federal government agencies are informed and involved in the decisionmaking process through meetings and conference calls.

12. One commentor strongly recommended that EPA always " couple together" for a pesticide both tolerance reassessment under FQPA and FIFRA's reregistration components, including the assessment of environmental fate and ecological effects, worker protection, endangered species, etc.

EPA's Response: EPA generally is reviewing pesticides for both tolerance reassessment and reregistration eligibility at the same time. However, on a caseby case basis, the Agency may move to complete the tolerance reassessment decision earlier, given individual circumstances. The Agency is required to reconsider certain tolerances because of FQPA and if based on anticipated residues.

13. One commentor recommended that the public participation process will prove too lengthy to use in the cumulative risk assessment phase. ( FQPA requires the assessment of the cumulative effects of pesticides that share a common mechanism of toxicity before tolerance reassessment for those pesticides can be achieved.)

EPA's Response: With advice and input from CARAT, EPA and USDA developed a process to ensure ample opportunities for public participation in EPA's development of the preliminary and revised organophosphate cumulative risk assessments. For additional information, see EPA's pesticide cumulative risk website, http:// www. epa. gov/ pesticides/ cumulative/ . 6 14. Several commentors expressed differing opinions about the stakeholder conference calls that USDA would hold during several phases of the public participation process and the interim process. One commentor suggested that unless conference calls are used sparingly and judiciously, they are a poor investment of EPA's and USDA's resources because they are time consuming to organize and frustrating to participate in. One commentor wanted EPA and USDA to clearly define in the public participation process the number of conference calls that would always be held, and the number that would be held in each region of the country. Other commentors were supportive of conference calls as described in the public participation process proposal.

EPA's Response: EPA and USDA believe that conference calls can be an effective tool to communicate with stakeholders throughout the public participation process. Stakeholder communication needs will be different for each pesticide ( because of the number of uses, complexity of risk issues, etc.); therefore, EPA and USDA believe that the number and frequency of conference calls must be determined on a pesticide specific basis. Conference call attendees are not restricted to only a small select group ( as one commentor charged), but may include a broad range of interested stakeholders, including those who express interest during Pre Phase 1.

B. Comments About the Interim Process 1. Several commentors objected to the use of an interim process for nonorganophosphate pesticides undergoing tolerance reassessment and reregistration, stating that the interim process limits public participation and is too short in time.

EPA's Response: EPA has employed the interim process for many nonorganophosphate pesticides undergoing tolerance reassessment and reregistration eligibility decision development work during the past several years. In most instances, the Agency has limited use of the shortened process to those decisions where no risks of concern have been identified, or where risks could be mitigated easily through label amendments. In developing decisions for these pesticides, the Agency has made a concerted effort to engage stakeholders in discussions and consultations through meetings and conference calls. Some non OP pesticides with more complex uses, issues, and/ or risks have been reviewed using a full, six phase process. Examples include atrazine, carbaryl, and lindane. For the organophosphate pesticides, EPA has continued to apply the pilot public participation process because these pesticides have made significant progress through that process. In reviewing the remaining pesticides scheduled for tolerance reassessment and reregistration development work in 2004 and beyond, EPA will continue to use a shortened, modified process where appropriate. 7 C. Supportive Comments EPA received numerous comments supporting various aspects of the public participation process. The following provides a short synopsis of these supportive comments.

1. EPA's efforts have made the risk assessment and related documents more available, user friendly, and visible to the public.

2. EPA is to be commended for working with USDA and with grower and applicator groups in addressing pesticide issues. The process EPA has used with USDA, especially the Office of Pest Management and Policy ( OPMP), has provided sound judgement and input into some difficult tolerance reassessment/ reregistration decisions.

3. The proposed process for public participation substantially maintains the openness of the pilot public participation process for reviewing risk assessments and risk management strategies for individual pesticides.

4. Support was expressed for three separate public participation/ comment periods ( use and usage characterization in Pre Phase 1/ Phase 1, risk assessment in Phase 3, and risk management in Phase 5), and in this sequence so that corrections and adjustments can be made at the earliest appropriate stage rather than waiting until possible problems are aggregated and compounded.

5. Support was expressed for enhanced Pre Phase 1 activities because this phase provides an important opportunity to enhance public support and confidence in the process and is very likely to increase actual participation. Pre Phase 1 will provide more of an opportunity to collect and supply to EPA and the pesticide registrants information and actual data on how a pesticide product is actually used. This data and information will aid EPA in achieving its goal of using sound science in the assessment of pesticides.

6. Many commentors were supportive of:

$ applying the public participation process to all pesticides in tolerance reassessment and reregistration;

$ the public release of the pesticide's use and usage data early in the process, and $ the release of risk management options and alternatives in Phase 5 because the public will be able to understand the options available to the Agency and provide meaningful comment.

7. In addition, many commentors were appreciative of EPA's efforts to make risk assessments and related documents accessible to the public through its website. 8 II. Comments Specific to the Phases of the Public Participation Process A. Pre Phase 1 1. Three commentors objected to the Agency's proposal to not use the word " preliminary" to describe the risk assessments that are released to the public in the early phases of the public participation process because the public may mistakenly believe that the documents are final when they are still subject to revision as the public participation process progresses.

EPA's Response: EPA maintains that the risk assessments now under development contain many more refinements than previous preliminary risk assessments, such as probabilistic dietary risk assessments, and therefore may be called risk assessments. EPA will include information describing the stage of development of a pesticide's risk assessments when they are released during the early stages of the public participation process, just as the Agency has done for each of the organophosphate pesticides.

2. Two commentors suggested that EPA make a public announcement when Pre Phase 1 activities for a pesticide are going to start. The method of this public announcement could be an annual notice listing pesticides planned for tolerance reassessment and reregistration work the next year.

EPA's Response: EPA agrees that registrants and other interested stakeholders will benefit from knowing which pesticides are scheduled to start the public participation process. The proposal stated that, " EPA will inform the public well in advance about pesticides that are scheduled for the public participation process." For the past several years, EPA has been posting on its pesticide reregistration website and including in its annual Federal Register notice on Pesticide Reregistration Performance Measures and Goals lists of RED, IRED, and TRED candidate pesticides for the then current and following fiscal year. EPA now has posted on its reregistration website the schedule for completing all remaining REDs, IREDs, and TREDs. A related Public Comment Period Schedule, updated quarterly, indicates when public participation opportunities are expected to begin for these pesticides during the next six months.

3. The proposal stated that, " Registrants will be asked to identify any ongoing studies and analyses that are relevant to the risk assessments, and EPA will announce for each pesticide the due dates for the submission of data, information, and analyses." One commentor asked that the Agency give more thought to how the registrants learn about outstanding and new data requirements, the timeframes for data submission, and how the notification of data submission requirements are transmitted to them. 9 EPA's Response: EPA commits to improving these communication issues.

4. One commentor wants use and usage information released during or at the beginning of Pre Phase 1 instead of at the end.

EPA's Response: A significant focus of Pre Phase 1 is to engage stakeholders as early as possible, to ensure the accuracy of key information on pesticide use and use practices that affect risk assessment. Using the Agency's website, EPA plans to share information describing the Agency's understanding of currently labeled uses, usage, and use practices for a pesticide during Pre Phase 1, based on input from USDA, registrants, users, and other stakeholders. This use/ usage information may be updated throughout the process as new information becomes available to the Agency.

5. One commentor suggested that, throughout Pre Phase 1, EPA should post information on its website as a way to ensure that individuals and stakeholder groups who are more difficult to access because of size or distance will be able to participate in this important phase. This commentor was also concerned that EPA not judge a stakeholder by their opinions expressed early in this stage of the process, because the stakeholder may revise his/ her position after reviewing the risk assessments during Phase 3' s public comment period.

EPA's Response: EPA is considering the types of information that may be helpful to the public at this very early stage. EPA understands that opinions expressed by stakeholders may change over the course of the public participation process.

6. One commentor stated that Pre Phase 1 would possibly add much more time to an already lengthy process, mostly contribute large quantities of anecdotal information that should not be used to affect or lower risk numbers, and be too resource intensive for EPA and USDA. Another commentor cautioned EPA not to allow Pre Phase 1 to delay the actual public participation process.

EPA's Response: EPA and USDA firmly believe that consultations with stakeholders about use and usage during this early stage are a worthwhile investment of time. These discussions will allow EPA to develop risk assessments that are based on the best information available, and overall will help to expedite the assessment of the pesticide. The resulting risk assessments will generate fewer error comments from registrants during Phase 1 and from the public during Phase 3, thereby allowing EPA to expedite its consideration of comments and revision of risk assessments. Another important benefit of Pre Phase 1 activities is that the public will be alerted in advance when a pesticide they may be interested in is about to start the public participation process. 10 EPA does not supplant scientifically generated data with anecdotal information. Anecdotal information about a pesticide's use and usage may be used in the risk assessments to add another scenario under which potential human and/ or environmental exposure to the pesticide can be estimated. Exposure scenarios that are developed using the labeled rates of the pesticide will continue to be very necessary and an important part of pesticide risk assessments.

B. Phase 1 1. One commentor asserted that Phase 1' s 30 day timeframe does not provide sufficient time for registrants to complete a thorough error identification review of the risk assessments. Contrarily, a different commentor stated that given the low frequency of significant errors identified by registrants ( as reported by EPA in the process proposal), a fourteen day registrant error identification review should be sufficient. If significant errors are identified, then an additional 14 review days could be granted by EPA.

EPA's Response: EPA maintains that 30 days is both a sufficient and an appropriate amount of time for registrants to review the risk assessments for errors. As reported in the proposal, the large majority of comments received from registrants during Phase 1 of the organophosphate pesticides pilot public participation process were considered to be non error comments. The majority of these non error comments were general comments about the preliminary risk assessments. Registrants need not develop or submit non error comments during Phase 1 because EPA will not respond to them prior to the release of the risk assessments in the first public comment period ( Phase 3). Registrants should submit their non error comments during Phase 3, as well as any additional errors that they have identified. While EPA would like to have all errors corrected prior to the release of the risk assessments for public comment, the Agency recognizes that the process provides additional opportunities for revisions to the assessment documents.

2. One commentor stated that the risk assessments should not be released to the public while data still needs to be reviewed or is still outstanding. The timeframes for submission of the data should be carefully thought out, and the Agency should explain how the data call in authority of FIFRA 3( c)( 2)( B) and FFDCA 408( f) would be used in this phase. Similarly, another commentor asked if regulatory decisions will be made if the Agency has knowledge that the submission of data is imminent. On the other hand, one commentor stated that EPA should stick to its intention of not delaying work when a study submission date is beyond the timeframe of the public participation process.

EPA's Response: EPA will use the data requirement notification process in 11 FFDCA section 408( f) when additional data or information of any type are deemed necessary to support continuation of a tolerance. Nevertheless, the Agency does not believe that section 408( f) requires the deferral of tolerance decision making until pesticide registrants or others have been given every possible opportunity to generate additional data that may further refine an existing risk assessment. Likewise, the Agency does not interpret section 408( f) as requiring the Agency to " call in" all data that could conceivably affect a tolerance risk assessment. Where EPA finds that additional data or information are not appropriate or necessary, the Agency will leave it to the discretion of registrants and other interested parties to determine which additional information they believe would most likely affect risk assessments, and then to submit that information. Many registrants have already chosen to submit additional data, not required by the Agency, to be considered as part of an FQPA tolerance reassessment.

FIFRA and FFDCA give the Agency considerable flexibility in choosing a course of regulatory action that appropriately carries out the broad statutory intent of protecting public health and the environment. When a risk assessment indicates a potential concern, EPA revisits critical assumptions and pivotal data. It is often at or before this preliminary assessment phase that registrants, growers, or other stakeholders choose to submit additional data relating to their products that assist us in refining the assessment.

If, after careful evaluation of all available information, the Agency still sees a significant risk, we believe that it is appropriate to take action to address that risk even though we may still require additional data ( or registrants or other sponsors may opt to develop and submit additional data). The Agency recognizes, too, that there may be instances where, after all of the data have been examined, the extent of the risk does not become reasonably clear and the Agency is unable to make a definitive safety finding. Under these circumstances EPA may need to require new studies from the registrant and either defer a decision until the new data are received and reviewed, or make an interim decision. As noted earlier, the Agency does not believe that section 408( f) requires the deferral of decision making until pesticide registrants or others have been given every possible opportunity to generate additional data that may further refine an existing risk assessment.

3. One commentor finds Phase 1 " unacceptable in the extreme", claiming that a prior consent agreement precludes EPA from limiting the release of information to only a limited number of stakeholders, and from holding private negotiations with pesticide registrants.

EPA's Response: Phase 1 is limited to the identification by registrants of errors and Confidential Business Information in the risk assessments. In the cover letter that EPA uses to transmit the risk assessments to registrants, they are asked to 12 identify any parts in the Agency's risk assessments that they want to claim as confidential. ( Screening for CBI must be accomplished by law before the Agency can release documents to the public.) In addition, the Agency does not enter into or initiate negotiations with registrants in Phase 1. Registrants are clearly informed in the transmittal cover letter that EPA is only receptive to the identification of errors in the risk assessments because EPA would like to have all errors corrected prior to the release of the risk assessments to the public.

C. Phase 2 1. One commentor asserted that EPA did not need 30 days to consider the errors identified by the registrant.

EPA's Response: EPA strives to release the revised risk assessments to the public as soon as possible. Agency staff actually have only two weeks to address errors because it takes two weeks to prepare for the opening of the public docket. All documents must be screened for Confidential Business Information and then formatted for Internet posting, and the Federal Register notice must be prepared and published.

D. Phase 3 1. One commentor suggested that the risk assessment summary documents provided to the public by the agency should clearly point out when the Agency has employed assumptions and models in developing the estimates of risk.

EPA's Response: EPA is continuously striving to improve the clarity and content of the risk assessment summary documents in order to provide the public with useful information about the pesticide under review.

2. One commentor believes that it is premature to identify pesticide alternatives during Phase 3; rather, alternatives should be a part of the later phases devoted to risk management. On the other hand, one commentor strongly supported the release to the public of pesticide alternatives at this stage, including non pesticidal alternatives.

EPA's Response: EPA has received many comments in the past requesting that the Agency begin a discussion of risk management earlier in the public participation process. The Agency agrees that the public will benefit in receiving a basic understanding of not only the risks that are identified in the initial risk assessments but also how the Agency characterizes those risks. This will allow the public to discern the Agency's level of concern ( if any) for each use at this stage in the development of the risk assessments. During this phase, EPA and USDA also may 13 begin to solicit input from stakeholders on the role and importance of the pesticide in pest management for particular crops or uses. This information can help set the stage for further consideration of benefits later in the process, if necessary.

3. One commentor suggested that EPA establish rules for when a 60 day comment period is appropriate for the risk assessments, versus when a 90 day comment period is warranted. Similarly, another commentor agreed that the timeframe for Phase 3 should be 60 90 days, although 60 days should be sufficient for the majority of pesticides, and that the complexity of risk issues should be the major criteria used in setting a pesticide's comment period.

EPA's Response: The Agency believes a case by case approach is best for determining which pesticides will receive a 60 or a 90 day public comment period. This determination will be made considering the complexity of the risk issues associated with the pesticide, the number of stakeholders who may be interested in participating ( based partially on stakeholder Agency interactions during Pre Phase 1), the number of use patterns, and other factors.

E. Phase 4 1. One commentor requested that EPA release to the public along with the revised risk assessments a description of how the Agency considered public comment in developing the revised risk assessments.

EPA's Response: The Agency fully intends to continue the current practice of releasing to the public its consideration of public comments received during Phase 3 ( public comment on the risk assessments) and Phase 5 ( public comment on risk management). The Agency has released " Response to Public Comments" documents since the initiation of the organophosphate pesticides pilot public participation process.

2. One commentor stated that if the Agency continues to solicit comments and ideas from the public during conference calls, then the public docket needs to remain open to allow for the submission of additional comments and data.

EPA's Response: Meeting minutes from all meetings and conference calls with stakeholders are always added to the public docket, regardless of the phase during which they occurred. In this way, the public can keep abreast of the Agency's ongoing discussions with all types of stakeholders. Comments and information are occasionally submitted by stakeholders to the docket after the close of the formal public comment period. While EPA does not disregard these late submissions, the Agency may not have adequate time to fully consider comments that are submitted too near the end of that public participation phase. These late comments will be 14 addressed in a subsequent risk assessment or risk management revision stage.

3. A commentor suggested that EPA needs to prepare the fullest range of risk management options for public comment during Phase 5. Too few options may lead the public to believe that the Agency has already decided on the final risk management approach.

EPA's Response: The Agency fully intends to develop and present for public comment a risk management proposal that clearly lays out a good range of options.

4. One commentor requested at least 30 days notice of Technical Briefings in order to allow the public to prepare for and attend these important public meetings.

EPA's Response: The Agency maintains that in general, based on its experience under the pilot public participation process, 2 weeks is sufficient notice for most Technical Briefings. Nevertheless, the Agency will strive to give more advance notice for pesticides with complex risk assessments.

5. One commentor suggested that while " up to 90 days" was an appropriate time period for this phase, EPA should make every effort to finish the risk assessment revisions as soon as possible.

EPA's Response: EPA agrees.

F. Phase 5 1. One commentor asserted that the revised risk assessment released to the public during Phase 5 should be available for public comment.

EPA's Response: EPA maintains that the proposed public participation process provides the public with a sufficient number of opportunities to review and comment on a pesticide's risk assessments. The process includes significant stakeholder consultation about the pesticide's use and usage during Pre Phase 1, and formal public comment during Phase 3. While Phase 5 serves to release to the public the risk assessments that have been revised based on public comments, its main purposes are to formally propose risk management options for public consideration and comment, and engage stakeholders in a dialogue about the risk management options. Further, today's risk assessments generally are quite refined by Phase 3, and there would be little value added by eliciting further comment on them during Phase 5.

2. One commentor asserts that USDA must organize conference calls in Phase 4 in all 15 cases.

EPA's Response: USDA believes that it is important to have flexibility in the public participation process in order to maintain the ability to tailor communications to meet stakeholder needs. Stakeholder meetings and other types of public meetings may be more suited for some pesticides, whereas conference calls may suffice for others. USDA remains committed to ensuring active stakeholder participation in the public participation process.

3. One commentor suggested that the timeframe for Phase 5 be 30 to 60 days because not all pesticides will need a full 60 days. EPA could, on a rare occasion, extend the comment period an additional 30 days if public interest is high.

EPA's Response: EPA believes that, in general, a full 60 days is necessary for public comment on the risk management proposal/ options. EPA and USDA understand, based on frequent comments from stakeholders during the pilot public participation process, that stakeholders are very interested in the activities associated with developing risk management. EPA and USDA want to give the public adequate time to participate. It is possible that EPA would occasionally consider shortening or lengthening the comment period on a case by case basis. EPA and USDA will strive to let stakeholders know in advance if the Agency were to use the flexibility that is part of the public participation process to modify the length of the public comment period.

G. Phase 6 1. One commentor questioned whether the final risk management would be available for public comment.

EPA's Response: EPA will make the risk management decisions available to the public and, at a minimum, provide for public comment on those actions that require it by statute ( such as the modification or revocation of a pesticide tolerance, and cancellations). EPA plans to conduct close out conference calls with interested stakeholders to describe the regulatory decisions presented in the risk management decisions.

2. One commentor suggested that while " up to 60 days" was an appropriate time period for this phase, EPA should reach a final risk management decision as soon as practicable.

EPA's Response: EPA agrees.

3. One commentor suggested that EPA needs to be explicit about how it intends to 16 pursue risk management for those pesticides that do and do not share a common mechanism of toxicity.

EPA's Response: The public participation process establishes a means for moving pesticides through assessment while ensuring public involvement. The process is not intended nor designed to be a vehicle for establishing policy about FQPA implementation. EPA has published science policy papers that discuss how risk management for common mechanism pesticides will be pursued. These science policy papers are available on EPA's internet website at www. epa. gov/ oppfead1/ trac/ science .

4. One commentor suggested that an additional step in the process be added to ensure that risk mitigation measures and resulting label changes do not create problems to the user community, such as unclear use instructions, or use changes that are impractical and inconsistent with current crop production practices.

EPA's Response: EPA recognizes the importance of crafting risk management and any resulting labeling changes that make sense to the pesticide user as well as achieve the necessary risk mitigation. A major benefit of the public participation process is the open communication among EPA, USDA, and interested stakeholders, including discussions about the risk reduction options that EPA will propose for public comment during Phase 5. These risk reduction options should be drafted clearly enough to enable the public to give the Agency and USDA advice and insight into the feasibility of the proposed risk mitigation, or at least to initiate discussion about the proposed measures, and provide a basis for the pubic to suggest risk management proposals. Phase 5 was designed and intended to seek public comment, initiate discussion, and elicit public ideas and input about risk reduction and risk management, and the use changes potentially entailed. EPA therefore does not believe that any additional steps or phases are needed for this purpose.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77465-77466]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30052]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP15-23-000; PF14-12-000]

Southern Natural Gas Company, LLC; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on December 3, 2014, Southern Natural Gas Company,
LLC (Southern), 569 Brookwood Village Suite 749, Birmingham, Alabama
35209, filed in the above referenced docket an application pursuant to
sections 7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Part 157 and
284 of the Commission's regulations requesting authorization to
construct and operate the North Main Line Relocation Project (Project).
Southern proposes to relocate (total of 3.91 miles) and abandon in
place (total of 3.41 miles) a segment of each of its three North Main
Lines and the Calera Branch Line in Jefferson County, Alabama. The
project is designed to ensure the continued safe and efficient
operation of Southern's existing fully subscribed pipeline facilities
at their certificated design capacity all as more fully set forth in
the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection. The filing is available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site web
at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any questions regarding this application may be directed to Glenn
A. Sheffield, Director, Rates & Regulatory Affairs, Southern Natural
Gas Company, L.C.C., 569 Brookwood Village Suite 749, Birmingham,
Alabama 35209<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(205) 325-3813, or
Tina Hardy at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(205) 325-3668.
    Specifically, Southern proposes to abandon in place 2.87 miles of
existing and parallel 22-inch North Main Line, 24-inch North Main Line
Loop, and 24-inch 2nd North Main Line and 0.54 miles of existing Calera
Branch Line. Southern also proposes to construct 3.48 miles of
relocated segments of each of the three North Main Lines with new
above-ground gate settings on each of the three lines and 0.43 miles of
relocated Calera Branch Line to replace the abandoned segments.
Southern states that the existing lines are located in the path of the
ongoing longwall coal mining operations that are planned to extend to
the area underneath the existing pipeline facilities by April 1, 2016.
Southern estimates the cost of this project to be $42,358,978 and it
will be rolled into Southern's existing rates.
    On June 24, 2014, the Commission staff granted Southern's request
to utilize the Pre-Filing Process and assigned Docket No. PF14-12-000
to staff activities involved in the Project. Now, as of the filing of
the December 3, 2014 application, the Pre-Filing Process for this
project has ended. From this time forward, this proceeding will be
conducted in Docket No. CP15-23-000, as noted in the caption of this
Notice.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules (18 CFR 157.9),
within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will either:
complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit seven copies of filings made in the proceeding with the
Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other
party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of
Commission orders in the proceeding.

    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 7, 2014.

    Dated: December 17, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-30052 Filed 12-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 170 (Thursday, September 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54516-54518]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22442]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65210; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2011-59]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change Adding Commentary .01 to Rule 6.37B To Indicate
That Market Makers Will Not Be Obligated To Quote in Adjusted Option
Series and To Clarify an Existing Exception to the Quoting Obligations

August 26, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on August 16, 2011, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE Arca'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which
Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to add Commentary .01 to Rule 6.37B to
indicate that Market Makers will not be obligated to quote in adjusted
option series and to clarify an existing exception to the quoting
obligations. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the
Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://www.nyse.com.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposal is to add Commentary .01 to Rule 6.37B
to relieve Market Makers of the obligation to quote in adjusted option
series and to propose a definition of adjusted options series. The
proposal is similar to a rule change for NASDAQ OMX Phlx (``Phlx'').\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Exchange Act Release No. 61095 (December 2, 2009) 74 FR
64786 (December 8, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 6.37B discusses the quoting obligations that are applicable to
Market Makers on the Exchange. The Rule states that, in addition to
other requirements, Lead Market Makers (``LMMs'') must provide
continuous two-sided quotations throughout the trading day in its
appointed issues for 90% of the time the Exchange is open for trading
in each issue. Similarly, Market Makers must provide continuous two-
sided quotations throughout the trading day in its appointed issues for
60% of the time the Exchange is open for trading in each issue.
    Under Rule 6.4(e)(i), LEAPS are series added as part of an extended
far term expiration month, and under the same provision, the Exchange
Rules regarding continuity do not apply to index option series until
the time to expiration is less than 12 months, and do not apply to
equity option series or option series on Exchange Traded Fund Shares
until the time to expiration is less than nine months.
    The Exchange proposes to clarify that the exception for LEAPS is an
exception to the obligations in Rule 6.37B by adding Commentary .01.
The Exchange further proposes to extend the exception to certain
adjusted series,\4\ and to define ``adjusted series'' for the purposes
of Rule 6.37B. An ``adjusted series'' under the Rule would be defined
as an option series wherein, as a result of a corporate action by the
issuer of the underlying security, one option contract in the series
represents the delivery of other than 100 shares of underlying stock or
Exchange-Traded Fund Shares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ NYSE Arca Rule 6.4(c) states ``Option contracts shall be
subject to adjustments in accordance with the Rules of the Options
Clearing Corporation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After a corporate action and a subsequent adjustment to the
existing options, the series in question are identified by the Options
Price Reporting Authority (``OPRA'') and at OCC with a separate symbol
consisting of the underlying symbol and a numerical appendage. As a
standard procedure, exchanges listing options on an underlying security
which undergoes a corporate action resulting in adjusted series will
list new standard option series across all appropriate expiration
months the day after the existing series are adjusted. The adjusted
series are generally active for a short period of time following
adjustment, but orders to open an options position in the underlying
are almost exclusively placed in the new standard contracts. Although
the adjusted series may not expire for as much as 27 months, in a short
time the adjusted series become inactive. Thus, the burden of quoting
these series generally outweighs the benefit of being appointed in the
class because of the lack of interest in the series by various market
participants.
    On NYSE Arca, such series may not meet the standards to be
considered active, and, under Commentary .03 to NYSE Arca Rule 6.86,
the Exchange shall no longer disseminate quotes in the series. Thus,
the current obligation holds Market Makers to submit quotes in series
that are generally not published to OPRA unless requested.\5\ Since the
obligation to submit electronic quotes upon request of a Trading
Official will continue if the proposed rule is approved, a fair and
orderly market in the inactive series is readily available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Commentary .03 to Rule 6.86 states, in part, ``The Exchange
may determine that a series has become active intraday if (i) The
series trades at any options exchange; (ii) NYSE Arca receives an
order in the series; or (iii) NYSE Arca receives a request for quote
from a customer in that series. If a series becomes active intraday,
the Exchange will immediately disseminate quotes in the series to
OPRA, and continue to disseminate quotes for the balance of the
trading day.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has recently noticed requests for withdrawals from
appointment in classes that include adjusted series by Market Makers,
including LMMs, resulting in a reduction in liquidity in these classes.
Market Makers and LMMs that have withdrawn from assignments in these
classes have informed the Exchange that the withdrawals were based in
part on the obligation to continuously quote adjusted options series
whereby the quoting obligations on these often less frequently traded
option series impacted the risk parameters acceptable to the Market
Makers and LMMs. The Market Makers and LMMs have also expressed that
the adjusted nature of these series also complicates the calculation of
an appropriate quote.
    This lack of interest is exacerbated by Market Makers withdrawing
from the appointments which in turn, has caused liquidity (as well as
volume) to be negatively impacted in the affected options classes
listed on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed
Commentary will ameliorate the liquidity impact by allowing Market
Makers and Lead Market Makers to continue their appointment in these
option classes.
    The proposed rule change is similar to the Phlx rule, in that the
Exchange is merely proposing to exclude the adjusted series from the
continuous quoting obligation, but not from other obligations under
Rules 6.37, 6.37A, 6.37B and 6.82. The Phlx rule excludes adjusted
series (and Quarterly Options) from the Streaming Quote Trader's
assignment. Of particular note, the proposal would not excuse a Market
Maker from the obligation, when called upon by a Trading Official, to
submit a single quote or maintain continuous quotes in one or more
series of an option issue within the Market Maker's appointment
whenever, in the judgment of such Trading Official, it is necessary to
do so in the interest of maintaining fair and orderly markets.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See NYSE Arca Rule 6.37B(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the proposed rule does not excuse the Market Maker from
the obligations to respond with a two-sided, legal width market to a
call for a market by a Floor Broker.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See NYSE Arca Rule 6.37(b)(5) and Commentary .05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current quoting obligation in such illiquid series is a minor
part of a Market Maker's overall obligation, and the proposed modicum
of relief is mitigated by the obligation to respond to a request for
quote from a Trading Official or a Floor Broker. Because of the lack of
interest in such series, there is little demonstrable benefit to being
a market maker in them other than the ability to maintain market maker
margins for what little activity may occur. In addition, the burden of
continuous quoting in these series is counter to efforts to mitigate
the number of quotes collected and disseminated.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change should incent
Market Makers and Lead Market Makers to continue appointments and
thereby expand liquidity in options classes listed on the Exchange to
the benefit of the Exchange and its OTP Holders and public customers.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that this proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \8\,
in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
\9\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and

manipulative acts and practices, promote just and equitable principles
of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and
open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the Act
because, on balance, the elimination of the continuous quoting
obligations in adjusted series is a minor change and should not impact
the quality of Arca's market. Among other things, adjusted series are
not common, and trading interest is often very low after the corporate
event has passed. Consequently, continuous quotes in such series
increases quote traffic and burdens systems without a corresponding
benefit. By not requiring Market Makers to continuously quote in such
series, the Exchange's proposal would further its goal of measured
quote mitigation. Further, while they will not be tasked with
continually quoting such series, Market Makers will be obligated to
quote the series when called upon by a Trading Official. In addition, a
MM [sic] will be required to quote the series when it becomes ``lit''
in response to a request for quote being received. Accordingly, the
proposal supports the quality of Arca's market by helping to ensure
that Market Makers will continue to be obligated to quote in adjusted
series when the need arises.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-NYSEArca-2011-59 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2011-59. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NYSEArca-2011-59 and should be submitted on or before September 22,
2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-22442 Filed 8-31-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76609-76610]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30036]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[EG13-57-000; EG13-58-000; EG13-59-000; EG13-60-000; EG13-61-000; EG13-
62-000; EG13-63-000; EG13-64-000; FC13-13-000]

Genesis Solar, LLC; NRG Delta LLC; Mountain View Solar, LLC;
Pheasant Run Wind, LLC; Pheasant Run Wind II, LLC; Tuscola Wind II,
LLC; Mountain Wind Power, LLC; Mountain Wind Power II, LLC; Summerhaven
Wind, LP; Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator or
Foreign Utility Company Status

    Take notice that during the month of November 2013, the status of
the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators or Foreign
Utility Companies became effective by operation of the Commission's
regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a).

    Dated: December 9, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-30036 Filed 12-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 14, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2129-2130]
[FR Doc No: 2020-00386]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12557-013]

JG Royal Mill, LLC and JJH Royal Mill, LLC; Notice of Application
for Surrender of Exemption, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene,
and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Application for surrender of exemption.
    b. Project No: 12557-013.
    c. Date Filed: November 25, 2019.
    d. Applicant: JG Royal Mill, LLC and JJH Royal Mill, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Royal Mills Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The 225-kilowatt project is located on the South
Branch of the Pawtuxet River in West Warwick, Kent County, Rhode
Island. The project does not occupy any federal lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of
1978, 16 U.S.C. 2705, 2708.
    h. Applicant Contact: John Geraghty, Geraghty Associates, Inc. P.O.
Box 52, Readville, MA 02137; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

    i. FERC Contact: Diana Shannon,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: February 7, 2020.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's
eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without
prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact
information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll
free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please
send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing
should include docket number P-12557-013. Comments emailed to
Commission staff are not considered part of the Commission record.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Request: The applicant proposes to surrender its
exemption for the project. The project has not operated since April
2017. No ground disturbing activities are proposed and project features
would remain in place, as they are part of the historical Royal Mills
Complex. The applicant proposes to ensure a minimum continuous flow
through the canal and tailrace, pass all other flow over the dam,
remove appurtenant equipment from the powerhouse, and secure the site.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE, Room 2A, Washington, DC
20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed on
the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. You may also register
online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be
notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from
the applicant.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214, respectively. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all
capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO
INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis. Any filing made by an intervenor must be accompanied
by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared
by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR
385.2010.

    Dated: January 8, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-00386 Filed 1-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 44 (Monday, March 7, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12696-12697]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04676]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0443; FRL-8850-02-OCSPP]

Octamethylcyclotetra-siloxane (D4); Final Scope of the Risk
Evaluation To Be Conducted Under the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA); Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and
implementing regulations, EPA is announcing the availability of the
final scope of the risk evaluation to be conducted for
octamethylcyclotetra-siloxane (D4) (Cyclotetrasiloxane,
2,2,4,4,6,6,8,8-octamethyl-; Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number
(CASRN) 556-67-2), a chemical substance for which EPA received a
manufacturer request for risk evaluation. The scope document includes
the conditions of use, hazards, exposures, and the potentially exposed
or susceptible subpopulations that EPA plans to consider in conducting
the risk evaluation for this chemical substance.

ADDRESSES: The docket, identified by docket identification (ID) number
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0443, is available online at https://www.regulations.gov or in-person at the Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC.
    Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is open to visitors by
appointment only. For the latest status information on EPA/DC services
and docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical information contact: Bethany Masten, Existing
Chemical Risk Management Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency (Mailcode 7404T), 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-8803; email address: [email protected].
    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general and may be of
interest to entities that manufacture (including import) a chemical
substance regulated under TSCA (e.g., entities identified under North
American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes 325 and
324110). The action may also be of interest to chemical processors,
distributors in commerce, and users; non-governmental organizations in
the environmental and public health sectors; state and local government
agencies; and members of the public. Since other entities may also be
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities and corresponding NAICS codes for entities that may be
interested in or affected by this action.

B. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    The final scope document is issued pursuant to TSCA section
6(b)(4)(D) and TSCA implementing regulations at 40 CFR 702.41(c)(8).

C. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is publishing the final scope of the risk evaluation for D4
under TSCA. Through the risk evaluation process, EPA will determine
whether the chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury
to health or the environment under the conditions of use, in accordance
with TSCA section 6(b)(4).

II. Background

    TSCA allows chemical manufacturers to request an EPA-conducted risk
evaluation of a chemical substance under 40 CFR 702.37. On March 19,
2020, EPA received a manufacturer request for a risk evaluation of D4
(Ref. 1). On June 17, 2020, EPA opened a 45-day public comment period
to gather information relevant to the requested risk evaluation. EPA
granted the request on October 6, 2020, and subsequently initiated the
scoping process for the risk evaluation for this chemical substance.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 702.41(c)(7), EPA announced the availability of and
sought public comment on the draft scope document for the risk
evaluation to be conducted for D4 under TSCA (86 FR 50347, September 8,
2021) (FRL-8850-01-OCSPP) (Ref. 2).
    The purpose of risk evaluation is to determine whether a chemical
substance, or category of chemical substances, presents an unreasonable
risk of injury to health or the environment, under the conditions of
use, including an unreasonable risk to a relevant potentially exposed
or susceptible subpopulation (15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(A)). As part of this
process, EPA must evaluate both hazards and exposures for the
conditions of use; describe whether aggregate or sentinel exposures
were considered and the basis for consideration; not consider costs or
other nonrisk factors; take into account, where relevant, likely
duration, intensity, frequency, and number of exposures and describe
the weight of the scientific evidence for hazards and exposures (15
U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(F)). This process will culminate in a determination
of whether the chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of
injury to health or the environment under the conditions of use (15
U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(A); 40 CFR 702.47).

III. Information and Comments Received on the Draft Scope

    In the Federal Register of September 8, 2021 (Ref. 2), EPA
announced the availability of the draft scope document for the risk
evaluation to be conducted for D4 under TSCA and invited public
comments on EPA's draft scope document, including additional data or
information relevant to the chemical substance or that otherwise could
be useful to the Agency in finalizing the scope of the risk evaluation.
To the extent that comments provided information on conditions of use,
as well as other elements of the draft scope document, those comments
and other submitted information (e.g., relevant studies, assessments,
information on degradation products, and information on conditions of
use) were used to inform revisions to the draft scope document and may
be considered in

subsequent phases of the risk evaluation process.
    EPA received six unique submissions for D4, including comments from
potentially affected businesses or trade associations, environmental
and public health advocacy groups, and one member of the general
public.
    Comments addressed the overall approach to the risk evaluation
process (e.g., collection, consideration, and systematic review of
relevant information), the specific elements of the scope document
(e.g., hazard, exposure, and potentially exposed or susceptible
subpopulations), information specific to the chemical substance (e.g.,
relevant studies, assessments, degradation products, and conditions of
use), and topics beyond the draft scope document phase of the process
(e.g., risk management). EPA considered those comments, as applicable
and appropriate, in developing the final scope document. Concurrently
with the publication of the final scope document, EPA is publishing a
response to comments document that contains a comprehensive summary of
and response to public comments received on the D4 draft scope
document. The comprehensive response to comments document is available
in the docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0443 (Ref. 3).

IV. References

    The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically
referenced in this Federal Register notice. The docket for this action
includes these documents and other information considered by EPA,
including documents that are referenced within the documents that are
included in the docket. For assistance in locating these referenced
documents, please consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

1. EPA. Octamethylcyclotetra-Siloxane (D4); Manufacturer Request for
Risk Evaluation Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA);
Notice of Availability and Request for Comments. Federal Register.
(85 FR 36586, June 17, 2020) (FRL-10010-49).
2. EPA. Octamethylcyclotetra-Siloxane (D4); Draft Scope of the Risk
Evaluation to be Conducted Under the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA); Notice of Availability and Request for Comments. Federal
Register. (86 FR 50347, September 8, 2021) (FRL-8850-01-OCSPP).
3. EPA. EPA Response to Public Comments Received on the Draft Scope
of the Risk Evaluation for Under the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) for Octamethylcyclotetra-siloxane (Cyclotetrasiloxane,
2,2,4,4,6,6,8,8-octamethyl-) (D4) CASRN 556-67-2 (March 2022).

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

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-04676 Filed 3-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P