[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 86 (Thursday, May 4, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28450-28456]
[FR Doc No: 2023-09302]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 147

[EPA-HQ-OW-2023-0073; FRL 9916-01-OW]

State of Louisiana Underground Injection Control Program; Class
VI Program Revision Application

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) has
received a complete Underground Injection Control (UIC) program
revision package from the State of Louisiana (State), requesting
approval of a revision to the State's Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
section 1422 UIC program to include Class VI injection well primary
enforcement responsibility (primacy). The proposed revision would allow
the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (LDNR) to issue UIC
permits for geologic carbon sequestration facilities as Class VI wells
and ensure compliance of Class VI wells under the UIC program. EPA
proposes to issue a final rule approving Louisiana's application to
implement the UIC program for Class VI injection wells located within
the State, except those on Indian lands. EPA proposes amendments to
reflect this proposed approval of Louisiana's Class VI primacy
application.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 3, 2023. The
application is available for inspection and copying at the address
appearing in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OW-2023-0073, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Water Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: EPA Docket Center, WJC West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.
The Docket Center's hours of operations are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday (except Federal Holidays).
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Public Participation''
heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Suzanne Kelly, Drinking Water
Infrastructure Development Division, Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water (4606M), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202)
564-3887; email address: [email protected] or Lisa Pham, U.S. EPA
Region 6, Groundwater/UIC Section (Mail code WDDG), 1201 Elm Street,
Suite 500, Dallas, Texas 75720-2102; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Public Participation
    A. Written Comments
    B. Participation in Public Hearing
    C. Public Participation Activities Conducted by Louisiana
II. Introduction
    A. UIC Program and Primary Enforcement Authority (Primacy)
    B. Class VI Wells Under the UIC Program
    C. Louisiana UIC Programs
III. Legal Authorities
IV. EPA's Evaluation of Louisiana's Primacy Revision Application
    A. Background
    B. Environmental Justice in Class VI Permitting
    C. Summary of EPA's Comprehensive Evaluation
V. EPA's Proposed Action--Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental
    Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
VII. References

I. Public Participation

A. Written Comments

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2023-
0073, at https://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or the
other methods identified in the ADDRESSES section. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from the docket. EPA may publish
any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit to EPA's
docket at https://www.regulations.gov any information you consider to
be Confidential Business Information (CBI), Proprietary Business
Information (PBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. If you need to submit CBI, contact Lisa Pham, contact
information available in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by
written comments. Written comments are considered the official comments
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). Please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets for additional submission methods; the full EPA public comment
policy; information about CBI, PBI, or multimedia submissions; and
general guidance on making effective comments.

B. Participation in Public Hearing

    A public hearing will be held on June 15, 2023 at Louisiana
Department of Natural Resources, LaBelle Hearing Room, 1st Floor,
LaSalle Building, 617 North 3rd Street, Baton Rouge, LA 70802. For
additional information regarding the public hearing, please contact
Lisa Pham at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].
    EPA will begin pre-registering speakers for the hearing upon
publication of this document in the Federal Register. To register to
speak at the hearing, please contact Lisa Pham at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected]. The last day to pre-register to speak at the hearing
will be June 8, 2023. On

June 14, 2023, EPA will post a general agenda for the hearing that will
list pre-registered speakers in approximate order at: https://www.epa.gov/uic/underground-injection-control-epa-region-6-ar-la-nm-ok-and-tx. EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely as
possible on the day of the hearing; however, please plan for the
hearings to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule.
Additionally, requests to speak will be accepted the day of the hearing
at the hearing registration desk. EPA will make every effort to
accommodate all speakers who arrive and register, although it may not
be possible to fulfill preferences on speaking times.
    EPA encourages commenters to provide EPA with a copy of their oral
testimony electronically by emailing it to [email protected]. EPA also
recommends submitting the text of your oral comments as written
comments to the rulemaking docket.
    EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations but
will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written statements
and supporting information submitted during the comment period will be
considered with the same weight as oral comments and supporting
information presented at the public hearing.
    Please note that any updates made to any aspect of the hearing are
posted online at: https://www.epa.gov/uic/underground-injection-control-epa-region-6-ar-la-nm-ok-and-tx. While EPA expects the hearing
to go forward as set forth above, please monitor our website or contact
Lisa Pham at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected] to determine if there
are any updates. EPA does not intend to publish a document in the
Federal Register announcing updates.
    EPA will not provide audiovisual equipment for presentations unless
we receive special requests in advance. Commenters should notify Lisa
Pham when they pre-register to speak that they will need specific
equipment. If you require the services of an interpreter or special
accommodations such as audio description, please pre-register for the
hearing with Lisa Pham and describe your needs by June 8, 2023. EPA may
not be able to arrange accommodations without advance notice.

C. Public Participation Activities Conducted by Louisiana

    In October 2020, the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources
(LDNR) published a notice of intent in the Louisiana Register to adopt
Statewide Order No. 29-N-6 providing rules for Class VI injection
wells. LDNR held a public comment period from October 20, 2020, to
December 1, 2020, and provided the opportunity to request a public
hearing. There was no request for a public hearing. LDNR received five
comments, which did not result in changes to the proposed rule. LDNR
later provided a second public comment period on the State's intent to
seek Class VI Primacy from May 28, 2021, to July 13, 2021. LDNR held a
public hearing at the LDNR Office in Baton Rouge on July 6, 2021.
Notice of the comment period and public hearing was published in six
newspapers across Louisiana, through email mailing list, and on LDNR's
website to ensure statewide attention of the comment period and public
hearing. LDNR received seven oral comments at the hearing and 21
written public comments. Commenters shared general concerns about the
role of carbon capture and storage in mitigating climate change,
sensitive coastal areas and erosion caused by pipelines, and the
current pollution and environmental hazard burden in Louisiana.
Commenters were also specifically concerned about whether LDNR had
adequate resources to successfully permit and monitor Class VI projects
and the State's assumption of liability after completion of projects.
Environmental Justice (EJ) was also a major concern, with commenters
seeking a clear EJ review process and criteria, as well as a mechanism
for Class VI projects to avoid impacts on already overburdened
communities with EJ concerns. LDNR responded to all public comments
including details about increased staffing and resources for Class VI
permitting responsibilities. Documentation of Louisiana's public
participation activities, including comments received and responses by
the LDNR, can be found in EPA's Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2023-0073.

II. Introduction

A. UIC Program and Primary Enforcement Authority (Primacy)

    The Safe Drinking Water Act (also known as SDWA) was passed by
Congress in 1974. It protects public health by regulating the nation's
public drinking water supply, including both surface and groundwater
sources. The SDWA requires EPA to develop requirements and provisions
for the state and tribal Underground Injection Control (UIC) programs.
These programs regulate the injection of fluids (such as water,
wastewater, brines from oil and gas production, and carbon dioxide) to
protect underground sources of drinking water (USDWs). USDWs are
aquifers or parts of aquifers that supply a public water system or
contain enough groundwater to supply a public water system. See 40 CFR
144.3.
    The UIC program regulates various aspects of an injection well
project. These include technical aspects throughout the lifetime of the
project from site characterization, construction, operation, and
testing and monitoring through site closure, as well as permitting,
site inspections, and reporting to ensure well owners and operators
comply with UIC regulations.
    SDWA section 1422 directs EPA to establish requirements that
states, territories, and federally recognized tribes (hereafter
referred to as applicants) must meet to be granted primary enforcement
responsibility or ``primacy'' for implementing a UIC program, including
a Class VI program. An applicant seeking primacy under SDWA section
1422 for a Class VI program must demonstrate to EPA that the
applicant's Class VI program is as stringent as the Federal
requirements and is protective of USDWs, including jurisdiction over
underground injection and provisions for the necessary administrative,
civil, and criminal enforcement penalty remedies under SDWA.
    EPA conducts a comprehensive technical and legal evaluation of each
primacy application to assess and confirm that the proposed program is
as stringent as the Federal regulations and to evaluate the
effectiveness of the state's proposed program. Louisiana's application
included the following elements: Louisiana's Class VI-related UIC
statutes and regulations; documents describing the public participation
process; a letter from the Governor of Louisiana requesting Class VI
primacy; a Program Description that explains how the State intends to
carry out its responsibilities; an Attorney General's statement of
enforcement authority; and an addendum to the existing Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between EPA and Louisiana describing the
administration, implementation, and enforcement of the Louisiana's
Class VI program.

B. Class VI Wells Under the UIC Program

    Class VI wells are used to inject carbon dioxide into deep rock
formations for the purpose of long-term underground storage, also known
as geologic sequestration. Geologic sequestration, when used as a part
of carbon capture and storage and carbon dioxide removal projects, is a
promising tool for reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere. Class VI injection wells are regulated under an

existing, rigorous SDWA permitting framework that protects USDWs.
    The UIC Class VI program provides multiple safeguards that work
together to protect USDWs and human health. Owners or operators that
wish to inject carbon dioxide for the purpose of geologic sequestration
must demonstrate that their injection well will meet all regulatory
requirements and receive a Class VI permit for each well. The UIC Class
VI program requires applicants to meet strict technical, financial, and
managerial requirements to obtain a Class VI permit, including:
     Site characterization to ensure the geology in the project
area will contain the carbon dioxide within the zone where it will be
injected.
     Modeling to delineate the predicted area influenced by
injection activities through the lifetime of operation.
     Evaluation of the delineated area to ensure all potential
pathways for fluid movement have been identified and addressed through
corrective action.
     Well construction requirements that ensure the Class VI
injection well will not leak carbon dioxide.
     Testing and monitoring throughout the life of the project,
including after carbon dioxide injection has ended. Requirements
include, for example, testing to ensure physical integrity of the well,
monitoring for seismic activity near the injection site, monitoring of
injection pressure and flow, chemical analysis of the carbon dioxide
stream that is being injected, and monitoring the extent of the
injected carbon dioxide plume and the surrounding area (e.g., ground
water) to ensure the carbon dioxide is contained as predicted.
     Operating requirements to ensure the injection activity
will not endanger USDWs or human health.
     Financial assurance mechanisms sufficient to cover the
cost for all phases of the geologic sequestration project including the
post injection site care period and until site closure has been
approved by the permitting authority.
     Emergency and remedial response plans.
     Reporting of all testing and monitoring results to the
permitting authority to ensure the well is operating in compliance with
all permit and regulatory requirements.
    The permitting authority ensures that these protective requirements
are included in each Class VI permit. A draft of each Class VI permit
is made available to the public for comment before a final permit is
issued.

C. Louisiana UIC Programs

    The State of Louisiana received primacy for Class I, III, IV, and V
injection wells under SDWA section 1422, and Class II injection wells
under SDWA section 1425 on March 23, 1982. On September 17, 2021,
Louisiana applied to EPA under section 1422 of SDWA, 42 U.S.C. 300h-1,
for primacy for Class VI injection wells located within the State,
except those located on Indian lands.

III. Legal Authorities

    This regulation is proposed under authority of SDWA sections 1422
and 1450, 42 U.S.C. 300h-1 and 300j-9.
    Section 1421 of SDWA requires the Administrator of EPA to
promulgate Federal requirements for effective state UIC programs to
prevent underground injection activities that endanger USDWs. Section
1422 of SDWA establishes requirements for states and tribes seeking EPA
approval of their UIC programs. It also requires that states and tribes
seeking approval demonstrate how the applicant (after public notice)
will implement a UIC program which meets the requirements set forth
under section 1421.
    For states and tribes that seek approval for UIC programs under
section 1422 of SDWA and those seeking EPA approval of revisions to
existing state and tribal UIC programs, EPA has promulgated regulations
setting forth the applicable procedures and substantive requirements
codified in 40 CFR parts 144, 145 and 146. 40 CFR part 144 outlines
general program requirements that each state must meet to obtain
primary enforcement authority. 40 CFR part 145 specifies the procedures
EPA will follow in approving, revising, and withdrawing state programs
and outlines the elements and provisions that a state must include in
their application. It also includes requirements for state permitting
programs (by reference to certain provisions of 40 CFR parts 124 and
144), compliance evaluation programs, enforcement authority, and
information sharing. 40 CFR part 146 contains the technical criteria
and standards applicable to each well class, including Class VI wells.

IV. EPA's Evaluation of Louisiana's Primacy Revision Application

A. Background

    On September 17, 2021, Louisiana submitted to EPA a program
revision application to add Class VI injection wells to the State's
SDWA section 1422 UIC program. The UIC program revision package from
Louisiana includes a description of the State's UIC Class VI program,
copies of all applicable rules and forms, a statement of legal
authority, a summary and results of Louisiana's public participation
activities, and an addendum to the existing MOA between Louisiana and
EPA's Region 6 office. EPA reviewed the application for completeness
and performed a technical evaluation of the application materials.

B. Environmental Justice in Class VI Permitting

    People across the country have shared with EPA concerns about the
safety of carbon capture and storage and carbon dioxide removal
projects as well as their concern that already environmentally
overburdened communities may yet again bear a disproportionate
environmental burden associated with geologic sequestration. Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies,
to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to identify
and address, as appropriate, disproportionate and adverse human health
or environmental impacts on minority (people of color) and low-income
populations. On December 9, 2022, EPA sent a letter to state governors
recognizing the importance of developing and deploying clean energy
technologies that capture and remove carbon from the atmosphere while
mitigating impacts on vulnerable communities, and ensuring protection
of underground drinking water sources. EPA called for states seeking
primacy to incorporate EJ and equity into proposed UIC Class VI
programs, including in permitting. EPA outlined a variety of
approaches, such as implementing an inclusive public participation
process, consideration of EJ impacts on communities, enforcing Class VI
regulatory requirements, and incorporating mitigation measures.
    As part of developing this proposal, EPA worked with the State of
Louisiana to adopt the environmental justice approaches encouraged in
the letter, which Louisiana has incorporated into their primacy
application. EPA reviewed Louisiana's EJ approach as described in the
State's Program Description and MOA addendum and compared it to the EJ
elements discussed in the December 9, 2022 letter. Louisiana's
committed in its MOA addendum to adopt all the EJ elements described in
the letter, including implementing an inclusive public participation
process, incorporating EJ and civil rights considerations in permit
review processes, enforcing Class VI regulatory protections, and
incorporating mitigation measures. More specifically, Louisiana also
committed in the MOA addendum to examine the potential

risks of each proposed Class VI well to minority and low-income
populations. EPA supports these commitments. Furthermore, Louisiana's
Program Description specifies that LDNR will require well owners or
operators to conduct an EJ review as part of the Class VI application
process. EPA supports LDNR's commitment in its Program Description to
evaluate project sites using EPA's EJ Screen and to utilize qualified
third-party reviewers to conduct additional evaluation of the Class VI
application when communities with EJ concerns and/or other increased
risk factors are identified. The results of the review will be used by
LDNR to determine if an enhanced public comment period will be
required. Lastly, LDNR's Program Description provides that LDNR will
require applicants to assess alternatives to the site location and
propose mitigating measures to ensure adverse environmental effects are
minimized. EPA supports each of these efforts described in LDNR's
program description.
    Based on its review of LDNR's MOA addendum and Program Description,
EPA concludes that Louisiana has addressed all EJ elements that were
discussed in the December 9, 2022, letter. EPA supports LDNR's
agreement to adopt these approaches to protecting EJ communities.
Louisiana's Class VI Program, as described in LDNR's primacy
application, includes approaches to ensure that equity and EJ will be
appropriately considered in permit reviews, and in LDNR's UIC Class VI
program as a whole.

C. Summary of EPA's Comprehensive Evaluation

    EPA conducted a comprehensive technical and legal evaluation of
Louisiana's Class VI primacy application to assess and confirm that the
State's UIC Class VI program is as stringent as the Federal regulations
and evaluated the effectiveness of the State's Class VI program. To be
approved for Class VI primacy under SDWA section 1422, a state or tribe
must have a UIC program that meets Federal requirements (40 CFR parts
124, 144, 145, and 146). EPA evaluated Louisiana's draft and final UIC
statutes and Class VI regulations against these Federal requirements.
The evaluation involved identifying and resolving any discrepancies
between the State and Federal UIC Class VI statutory and/or regulatory
provisions. EPA worked with Louisiana to address any stringency issues
with their draft and final Class VI regulations prior to submittal of
the primacy application. The Agency also evaluated for stringency and
effectiveness Louisiana's Class VI Program Description, the Attorney
General's statement of enforcement authority, and the addendum to the
MOA between EPA and Louisiana, describing the administration,
implementation, and enforcement of Louisiana's UIC Class VI program.
    EPA evaluated Louisiana's program description against 40 CFR
145.23, which lists all the information that must be submitted as part
of the program description. EPA's evaluation of the program description
includes reviewing the scope, structure, coverage, processes and
organizational structure of the permitting authority. EPA evaluated
LDNR's permitting, administrative and judicial review procedures and
reviewed the permit application, reporting, and manifest forms. EPA
also reviewed the State's compliance tracking and enforcement
mechanisms. EPA evaluated LDNR's proposed schedule for issuing permits
within the first 2 years after program approval. More specifically, EPA
required Louisiana to demonstrate that the State's Class VI program
will have adequate in-house staff or access to contractor support for
technical areas including site characterization, modeling, well
construction and testing, financial responsibility, regulatory and risk
analysis expertise.
    EPA evaluated Louisiana's Attorney General's statement against 40
CFR 145.24 to ensure it met Federal requirements. The Attorney
General's statement is required to ensure that a state's top legal
officer affirms that state statutes, regulations and judicial decisions
demonstrate adequate authority to administer the UIC Program as
described in the program description and consistent with EPA's
regulatory requirements for UIC programs. EPA independently evaluates
and confirms that the Attorney General's statement certifies that the
state either does not have environmental audit privilege and/or
immunity laws, or, if there are environmental audit privilege and/or
immunity laws, that they will not affect the ability of the state to
meet the enforcement and information gathering requirements under SDWA.
    EPA evaluated Louisiana's MOA addendum against 40 CFR 145.25 to
ensure it met Federal requirements. The MOA is the central agreement
setting the provisions and arrangements between the state and EPA
concerning the administration, implementation, and enforcement of the
state UIC Program. EPA's evaluation includes ensuring that the MOA
contains the necessary provisions pertaining to agreements on
coordination, permitting, compliance monitoring, enforcement, and EPA
oversight. For example, the MOA addendum specifies that LDNR and EPA
agree to maintain a high level of cooperation and coordination to
assure successful and efficient administration of the UIC Class VI
program. EPA is aware that stakeholders have raised concern about
Louisiana's long term liability provision in Louisiana Revised Statute
(LA R.S.) 30:1109. LDNR agreed in the MOA addendum that LDNR will not
issue a certificate of completion pursuant to LA R.S. 30:1109 until the
owner or operator submits a site closure report pursuant to 40 CFR
146.93(f) and Louisiana Code (LAC) 43:XVII.3633.A.6 and otherwise fully
complies with the site closure requirements in 40 CFR 146.93 and LAC
43:XVII.3633.A. Additionally, EPA and LDNR agree to coordinate prior to
LDNR approving any site closure to ensure doing so is consistent with
the requirements of the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act. EPA concludes
that Louisiana's Class VI Program--implemented consistent with the MOA
addendum--meets Federal requirements. EPA will also confirm that
specific aspects of LA R.S. 30:1109 are consistent with EPA's
interpretation.
    Louisiana has demonstrated that it has the legal authority to
implement all permit requirements found in 40 CFR 145.11. Louisiana's
UIC Class VI permitting provisions are as stringent as EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR 124 and 144. The State has incorporated necessary
procedures, pursuant to 40 CFR 145.12 to support a robust compliance
evaluation program. Additionally, Louisiana has the necessary
administrative, civil, and criminal enforcement penalty remedies
pursuant to 40 CFR 145.13. Louisiana's Class VI regulations regarding
permitting, inspection, operation, and monitoring are at least as
stringent as found in 40 CFR parts 145 and 146. Louisiana's reporting
and recordkeeping requirements are as stringent as found in 40 CFR
144.54 and 146.91 for Class VI wells. EPA is aware that stakeholders
have raised concern that Louisiana's long term liability provision in
LA R.S. 30:1109 undercuts the state's ability to meet the enforcement
authority requirements at 40 CFR 145.13. EPA's interpretation is that
Louisiana's enforcement authority related to Class VI meets Federal
requirements if LDNR implements LA R.S. 30:1109 consistent with the MOA
addendum. We are working with Louisiana to confirm that specific
aspects of LA R.S. 30:1109 are consistent with our interpretation.
    As a result of this comprehensive review, EPA is proposing to
approve

Louisiana's application because EPA has determined that the application
meets all applicable requirements for approval under SDWA section 1422
and the State is capable of administering a UIC Class VI program in a
manner consistent with the terms and purposes of SDWA and all
applicable UIC regulations.

V. EPA's Proposed Action--Incorporation by Reference

    EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the State of Louisiana's
UIC Program for primacy for regulating Class VI injection wells in the
State, except for those located on Indian lands. Louisiana's statutes
and supporting documentation are publicly available in EPA's Docket No.
EPA-HQ-OW-2023-0073. If finalized, this action would amend 40 CFR
147.950 and incorporate by reference EPA-approved state statutes and
regulations that contain standards, requirements, and procedures
applicable to Class VI owners or operators. EPA will continue to
administer the UIC program for Class I, II, III, IV, V and VI injection
wells on Indian lands.
    If finalized, the provisions of Louisiana's statutes and
regulations that contain standards, requirements, and procedures
applicable to owners or operators of UIC Class VI wells would be
incorporated by reference into 40 CFR 147.950. Provisions of
Louisiana's statutes and regulations that contain standards,
requirements, and procedures applicable to owners or operators of Class
I, III, IV and V injection wells have already been incorporated by
reference into 40 CFR 147.950. Any provisions incorporated by
reference, as well as all permit conditions or permit denials issued
pursuant to such provisions, are enforceable by EPA pursuant to section
1423 of SDWA and 40 CFR 147.1(e).
    For clarity, EPA is reformatting the codification of EPA-approved
Louisiana SDWA section 1422 UIC Program statutes and regulations for
Well Classes I, III, IV, V and VI that are already incorporated by
reference. Instead of codifying Louisiana statutes and regulations as
separate paragraphs, EPA will be incorporating by reference a
compilation that contains ``EPA-approved Louisiana statutes and
regulations for Well Classes I, III, IV, V and VI.'' This notebook
compilation will be incorporated by reference into 40 CFR 147.950 and
the documents will be available at https://www.regulations.gov in the
docket for this proposed rule. EPA will also codify a table listing
EPA-approved Louisiana Statutes and Regulations for Well Classes I,
III, IV, V and VI in 40 CFR 147.950, including those already
incorporated by reference.
    Upon approval, EPA would oversee Louisiana's administration of SDWA
Class VI program and will continue to oversee Louisiana's
administration of the programs for SDWA Class I, II, III, IV, and V
wells. EPA will require quarterly reports of non-compliance and annual
UIC performance reports pursuant to 40 CFR 144.8. The MOA addendum
between EPA and Louisiana, signed by the Regional Administrator on
March 3, 2023, articulates that EPA will oversee the State's
administration of the UIC Class VI program on a continuing basis to
assure that such administration is consistent with the program MOAs,
the State UIC grant application, and all applicable requirements
embodied in current regulations, policies, and Federal law. In
addition, the MOA addendum provides that EPA may request specific
information including permits and the accompanying EJ reviews.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders
can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is exempt from review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) because OMB has exempted, as a category, the approval of
state UIC programs.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This proposed action will not impose any new information collection
burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information
collection activities contained in the existing regulations and has
assigned OMB control number 2040-0042. Reporting or recordkeeping
requirements will be based on Louisiana's UIC Regulations, and the
State of Louisiana is not subject to the PRA.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this proposed action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
RFA. This proposed action does not impose any requirements on small
entities as this action approves an existing state program.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This proposed action does not contain any unfunded mandate as
described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. The proposed action imposes no
enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the
private sector. EPA's proposed approval of Louisiana's Class VI program
will not constitute a Federal mandate because there is no requirement
that a state establish UIC regulatory programs and because the program
is a state, rather than a Federal program.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects 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.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This proposed action does not have tribal implications as specified
in Executive Order 13175. This proposed action contains no Federal
mandates for tribal governments and does not impose any enforceable
duties on tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this proposed action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children,
per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in section 2-202 of
the Executive Order. This proposed action is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 because it approves a state program.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This proposed action does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by
law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations (people of color) and low-income
populations.
    EPA believes that it is not practicable to assess whether the human
health or environmental conditions that exist prior to this action
result in disproportionate and adverse effects on people of color, low-
income populations and/or Indigenous peoples because there currently
are no Class VI wells permitted in Louisiana and because this is a
procedural action. EPA has reviewed Louisiana's proposed approach to
environmental justice, as outlined in the Program Description and MOA,
and described in section IV.B of this preamble. EPA considers
Louisiana's Class VI primacy application to fully integrate
environmental justice and equity considerations into their UIC Class VI
program, while ensuring protection of USDWs. This proposed action would
provide Louisiana with primacy under SDWA section 1422 for a UIC Class
VI program, pursuant to which Louisiana will be implementing a program
that is as stringent as an EPA administered UIC Class VI program.

VII. References

Attorney General's Statement ``Attorney General's Statement to
Accompany Louisiana's Underground Injection Control Program Class VI
Primacy Application,'' signed by the Attorney General for the State
of Louisiana, February 10, 2021.
Memo from Environmental Defense Fund and Gupta Wessler PLLC to EPA
related to Long Term Liability, March 2, 2023.
Letter from EPA to State Governors, December 9, 2022.
Letter from Governor of Louisiana to Regional Administrator, EPA
Region VI, March 4, 2021.
Louisiana Administrative Code 43:XVIII.Chapter 36 (Statewide Order
No. 29-N-6). Class VI Injection Well Regulations. January 2021.
Memorandum of Agreement Addendum 3 between the State of Louisiana
and EPA, Region VI for the UIC Class VI Program, signed by the EPA
Regional Administrator on March 3, 2023.
State of Louisiana Class VI Underground Injection Control Program
1422 Description, April 2021.
State of Louisiana. Summary Report of Public Comment Class VI
Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide Office of Conservation
Rules and Regulations LAC 43:XVII.Chapter 6 (Statewide Order 29-N-
6), April 21, 2021.
State of Louisiana. Comment Response Document. Class VI Geologic
Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide Office of Conservation Rules and
Regulations LAC 43:XVII.Chapter 6 (Statewide Order 29-N-6), December
9, 2020.
State of Louisiana. Public Hearing and Rule Docket for the Class VI
USEPA Primacy Application, July 6, 2021.
State of Louisiana. Public Hearing Transcript for the Class VI USEPA
Primacy Application, July 6, 2021.
State of Louisiana. Compilation of Public Comments. Class VI
Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide Office of Conservation
Rules and Regulations LAC 43:XVII.Chapter 6 (Statewide Order 29-N-
6), August 12, 2021.
State of Louisiana Summary Report of Public Comment Class VI
Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide Office of Conservation
Rules and Regulations LAC 43:XVII.Chapter 6 (Statewide Order 29-N-
6), September 17, 2021.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 147

    Environmental protection, Incorporation by reference, Indian lands,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Water supply.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40
CFR part 147 as follows:

PART 147--STATE, TRIBAL, AND EPA-ADMINISTERED UNDERGROUND INJECTION
CONTROL PROGRAMS

0
1. The authority citation for part 147 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.; and 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.

0
2. Amend Sec.  147.950 by:
0
a. Revising the section heading;
0
b. Revising the introductory text and paragraph (a);
0
c. Adding paragraphs (b)(3) and (4), and (c)(4); and
0
d. Revising paragraph (d).
    The revisions and additions read as follows.

Sec.  147.950  State-administered program--Class I, II, III, IV, V and
VI wells.

    The UIC program for Class I, II, III, IV, and V wells in the State
of Louisiana, except those wells on Indian lands, is the program
administered by the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources approved
by EPA pursuant to sections 1422 and 1425 of the SDWA. Notice of this
approval was published in the Federal Register on April 23, 1982; the
effective date of this program is March 23, 1982. The UIC Program for
Class VI wells in Louisiana, except those located on Indian lands, is
the program administered by the Louisiana Department of Natural
Resources, approved by EPA pursuant to SDWA section 1422. The effective
date of this program is [DATE OF FINAL RULE PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER]. The UIC program for Class I, II, III, IV, V, and VI wells in
the State of Louisiana, except those located on Indian lands, consists
of the following elements, as submitted to EPA in the State's program
application and program revision application.
    (a) Incorporation by reference. EPA-approved Louisiana statutes and
regulations for Well Classes I, III, IV, V and VI, dated [date when EPA
compiles the notebook] (as described in table 1 to this paragraph (a))
is incorporated by reference and made a part of the applicable UIC
program under the SDWA for the State of Louisiana. This incorporation
by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. This material is
available for inspection at the EPA and the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). Contact the EPA at: the Water Docket,
EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.
NW, Washington, DC 20460;<PHONE_NUMBER>. For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, visit www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html or email [email protected]. The
material may be obtained from or inspected at the Louisiana Department
of Natural Resources (LDNR), Office of Conservation, Injection and
Mining Division, LaSalle Building, 617 North Third Street, Room 817,
Baton Rouge, LA 70802;<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Table 1 to Paragraph (a)--EPA-Approved Louisiana SDWA Sec.   1422 Underground Injection Control Program Statutes
                              and Regulations for Well Classes I, III, IV, V and VI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          State citation                Title/subject            State effective date         EPA approval date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana Revised Statutes          Minerals, Oil, and     1975 and Supp. 1982............  June 25, 1984.
 Annotated sections 30:1; 30:4;      Gas and
 30:6; 30:18; 30:22-23, and          Environmental
 30:1101 to 30:1111.                 Quality.
Underground Injection Control       Class I, III, IV and   February 20, 1982..............  June 25, 1984.
 Program Regulations for Class I,    V Injection Wells.
 III, IV, and V wells, (Statewide
 Order No. 29-N-1).
Louisiana Administrative Code       Drilling for and       August 26, 1974................  June 25, 1984.
 43:XIX.Chapters 1-5 (Statewide      Producing of Oil and
 Order No. 29-B).                    Gas in the State of
                                     Louisiana.
Louisiana Administrative Code       Hydrocarbon Storage    July 20, 1977..................  June 25, 1984.
 43:XVIII.Chapter 3 (Statewide       Wells in Salt Dome
 Order No. 29)..                     Cavities.
Louisiana Administrative Code       Class VI Injection     January 2021...................  [DATE OF FINAL RULE
 43:XVIII.Chapter 36 (Statewide      Wells.                                                  PUBLICATION IN THE
 Order No. 29-N-6).                                                                          FEDERAL REGISTER.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) * * *
    (3) Memorandum of Agreement Addendum 3 between the State of
Louisiana and EPA, Region VI for the UIC Class VI Program, signed by
the EPA Regional Administrator on March 3, 2023.
    (4) Letter from Governor of Louisiana to Regional Administrator,
EPA Region VI, March 4, 2021.
    (c) * * *
    (4) Attorney General's Statement ``Attorney General's Statement to
Accompany Louisiana's Underground Injection Control Program Class VI
Primacy Application,'' signed by the Attorney General for the State of
Louisiana, February 10, 2021.
    (d) The Program Description and any other materials submitted as
part of the application or amendment thereto, and the Program
Description and any other materials submitted as part of the program
revision application or amendment thereto.

[FR Doc. 2023-09302 Filed 5-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 6, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 33331]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13657]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 395

Regulatory Guidance on the Applicability of Property-Carrier
Hours-of-Service Rules to the Driveaway Operation of Vehicles Designed
to Transport Passengers

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of regulatory guidance.

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

SUMMARY: The property-carrier hours-of-service (HOS) rules in 49 CFR
395.3 are applicable to drivers operating commercial motor vehicles
designed or used to transport passengers on ``driveaway-towaway''
trips, as defined in 49 CFR 390.5. This notice provides Federal and
State enforcement personnel, and the motor carrier industry, with
uniform guidance concerning these rules.

DATES: Effective Date: This regulatory guidance is effective June 6,
2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas L. Yager, Chief, Driver and
Carrier Operations Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590. Email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Legal Basis

    The Motor Carrier Act of 1935 provides that ``The Secretary of
Transportation may prescribe requirements for (1) qualifications and
maximum hours of service of employees of, and safety of operation and
equipment of, a motor carrier; and (2) qualifications and maximum hours
of service of employees of, and standards for equipment of, a motor
private carrier, when needed to promote safety of operation'' [49
U.S.C. 31502(b)].
    The Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (MCSA) confers on the
Secretary the authority to regulate drivers, motor carriers, and
vehicle equipment. It requires the Secretary to prescribe safety
standards for commercial motor vehicles (CMVs). At a minimum, the
regulations must ensure that (1) CMVs are maintained, equipped, loaded,
and operated safely; (2) the responsibilities imposed on operators of
CMVs do not impair their ability to operate the vehicles safely; (3)
the physical condition of operators of CMVs is adequate to enable them
to operate the vehicles safely; and (4) the operation of CMVs does not
have a deleterious effect on the physical condition of the operator [49
U.S.C. 31136(a)]. The Act also grants the Secretary broad power to
``prescribe recordkeeping and reporting requirements'' and to ``perform
other acts the Secretary considers appropriate'' [49 U.S.C. 31133(a)(8)
and (10)].
    The Administrator of FMCSA has been delegated authority to carry
out the functions vested in the Secretary by the Motor Carrier Act of
1935 [49 CFR 1.73(l)], and the MCSA [Sec.  1.73(g)]. The provisions
affected by this Notice of Regulatory Guidance are based on these
statutes.

Background

    This document adds regulatory guidance on the applicability of the
hours-of-service (HOS) regulations for property-carrying drivers in 49
CFR 395.3 to drivers of vehicles designed or used to transport
passengers, while operating the vehicle on a ``driveaway-towaway'' trip
as defined 49 CFR 390.5. These drivers often work for motor carriers
that specialize in delivery of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs), and
they do not operate CMVs to transport passengers on a regular basis.
    The Sec.  390.5 definition of ``driveaway-towaway'' is ``* * * an
operation in which an empty or unladen motor vehicle with one or more
sets of wheels on the surface of the roadway is being transported: (1)
Between vehicle manufacturer's facilities; (2) between a vehicle
manufacturer and a dealership or purchaser; (3) between a dealership,
or other entity selling or leasing the vehicle, and a purchaser or
lessee; (4) to a motor carrier's terminal or repair facility for the
repair of disabling damage (as defined in Sec.  390.5) following a
crash; (5) to a motor carrier's terminal or repair facility for repairs
associated with the failure of a vehicle component or system; or (6) by
means of a saddle-mount or tow-bar.''

Reason for This Notice

    Section 395.3 prescribes the primary HOS regulations applicable to
property-carrying drivers, and Sec.  395.5 prescribes the comparable
regulations for passenger-carrying drivers. Neither the term
``property-carrying'' nor ``passenger-carrying'' is defined in these
regulations. The FMCSA has received inquiries from motor carriers as to
whether the property-carrying or passenger-carrying HOS rules would
apply in driveaway situations usually involving the delivery of a bus,
motorcoach, or similar CMV from the manufacturer or distributor to the
dealer, or similar scenario. The Agency agrees that regulatory guidance
is needed to clarify applicability of the HOS regulations. For the
reasons explained above, FMCSA issues Regulatory Guidance Question 1 to
Sec.  395.5 of the FMCSRs.

PART 395--HOURS OF SERVICE OF DRIVERS

Sec.  395.5  ``Maximum driving time for passenger-carrying vehicles.''

    ``Question 1: Would a driver delivering an empty commercial motor
vehicle designed or used to carry passengers, from the manufacturer or
distributor to a dealer, or otherwise engaged in a ``driveaway-
towaway'' trip as defined in Sec.  390.5, be required to comply with
the hours-of-service regulations for passenger-carrying drivers?
    Guidance:
    No. The property-carrier hours-of-service rules in Sec.  395.3 are
applicable to drivers operating commercial motor vehicles designed or
used to transport passengers in a ``driveaway-towaway'' operation, as
defined in Sec.  390.5.''

    Issued on: May 29, 2012.
Anne S. Ferro,
 Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-13657 Filed 6-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: April 3, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 63)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 15222-15225]
[DOCID:fr03ap09-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

49 CFR Parts 23 and 26

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2009-0074]
RIN 2105-AD79

Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program; Inflationary
Adjustment

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Under the statutes governing the Department's Disadvantaged
Business Enterprise (DBE) Program, firms are not considered small
business concerns and are therefore ineligible as DBEs once their
average annual receipts over the preceding three fiscal years reach
specified dollar limits. The Department of Transportation is amending
the size limits or gross receipts caps to ensure that the opportunity
of small businesses to participate in the Department's DBE programs
remains unchanged after taking inflation into account. This final rule
provides 2009 inflation adjustment of size limits on small businesses
participating in the DOT's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise programs.

DATES: This rule is effective April 3, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert C. Ashby, Deputy Assistant
General Counsel for Regulation and Enforcement, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., W94-302, Washington, DC
20590, phone numbers<PHONE_NUMBER> (voice),<PHONE_NUMBER> (fax),
(202) 755-7687 (TTY<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(e-mail).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On April 2, 2007, the Department published a final rule revising 49
CFR part 23, the regulation governing the airport concessions
disadvantaged business enterprise (ACDBE) program, to require that the
Department adjust the general ACDBE gross receipts cap for inflation.
That rule also adjusted the gross receipts cap for the Department's
financial assistance programs in 49 CFR part 26. This final rule
updates the gross receipts cap for the ACDBE program and the
Department's financial assistance program for 2009.

The DBE Airport Concession and Contracting Programs

    The DOT-assisted contracts DBE rule and airport concessions DBE
rule are based on different statutes. Each statute applies to a
distinct type of business that may seek DOT financial assistance. The
ACDBE program is designed to give business opportunities to certain
small business concerns that operate at airports and that are owned and
controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals. The
ACDBE program is mandated by 49 U.S.C. 47107(e), originally enacted in
1987 and amended in 1992.
    The DBE program for DOT-assisted contracts is a statutory program
intended to ensure nondiscriminatory contracting opportunities for
small business concerns owned and controlled by socially and
economically disadvantaged individuals in the Department's highway,
mass transit and airport financial assistance programs. The statutory
provision governing the DBE program in the highway and mass transit
financial assistance programs is 1101(b) of the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU), Public Law 109-59, August 10, 2005. The statutory
provision governing the DBE program as it relates to the airport
financial assistance programs is 49 U.S.C. 47113.

ACDBE Gross Receipts Size Standards

    Under the current DOT rule, if the airport concessions firm's
annual gross receipts average over the preceding three fiscal years
exceed $47,780,000,

then, it is not considered a small business eligible to be certified as
an ACDBE. This final rule adjusts the size standards for eligibility as
an ACDBE for inflation.
    This adjustment compensates for the rise in the general level of
prices over time from the third quarter of 2006 through the fourth
quarter of 2008. In order to ensure that this adjustment is made on a
timely basis in the future, the rule was amended to provide for a
similar adjustment every two years, using the same method. At two year
intervals, the Department is to publish a final rule to update the size
standard numbers. This final rule updates the ACDBE gross receipts cap
for 2009. It should be emphasized that this action does not increase
the size standard for ACDBEs in real dollar terms. It simply maintains
the status quo, adjusting to 2008 dollars.
    In order to make an inflation adjustment to the gross receipts
figures, the Department of Transportation uses a Department of Commerce
price index. The Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis
prepares constant dollar estimates of state and local government
purchases of goods and services by deflating current dollar estimates
by suitable price indexes.\1\ These indices include purchases of
durable and non-durable goods, and other services. Using these price
deflators enables the Department to adjust dollar figures for past
years' inflation. Given the nature of the Department's DBE Program and
ACDBE Program, adjusting the gross receipts cap in the same manner in
which inflation adjustments are made to the costs of state and local
government purchases of goods and services is simple, accurate, and
fair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Bureau of Economic Analysis National Income and Product
Account Table; Table 3.10.4 Price Indexes for Government Consumption
Expenditures and General Government Gross Output.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The inflation rate on purchases by state and local governments for
the current year is calculated by dividing the price deflator for the
fourth quarter of 2008 (140.964) by 2006's third quarter price deflator
(128.352). The result of the calculation is 1.0982, which represents an
inflation rate of 1.098% from the third quarter of 2006. Multiplying
the $47,780,000 figure for small business enterprises by 1.0982 equals
$52,471,996, which will be rounded off to the nearest $10,000, or
$52,470,000.
    Therefore, under this new rule, if a firm's gross receipts,
averaged over the firm's previous three fiscal years, exceeds
$52,470,000, then it exceeds the airport concessions small business
size limit contained in part 23.

ACDBE Car Rental Company Size Standards

    Under the existing rule, car rental companies are not eligible to
participate in the ACDBE program if their average gross receipts over
the three previous fiscal years exceed $63,710,000. This final rule
adjusts the size standard for car rental companies to reflect the
effects of inflation on the real dollar value.
    The inflation rate on purchases by state and local governments for
the current year is calculated by dividing the price deflator for the
fourth quarter of 2008 (140.964) by 2006's third quarter price deflator
(128.352). The result of the calculation is 1.0982, which represents an
inflation rate of 1.098% from the third quarter of 2006. Multiplying
the $63,710,000 figure for car rental companies by 1.0982 equals
$69,966,322, which will be rounded off to the nearest $10,000, or
$69,970,000.
    Therefore, under this new rule, if a car rental company's gross
receipts, averaged over the company's previous three fiscal years,
exceeds $69,970,000, then it exceeds the airport concessions car rental
company size limit contained in part 23.

Business Size Standards for the DBE DOT Financial Assistance Programs

    This rule also adjusts the gross receipts cap for the Department's
financial assistance programs in 49 CFR part 26. Under the existing
rule, if a firm's average annual gross receipts, as defined by Small
Business Administration (SBA) regulations (see 13 CFR 121.402), over
the preceding three fiscal years exceed $20,410,000, then it cannot
qualify as an eligible DBE firm. SAFETEA-LU Section 1101(b)(1)(a)
instructs the Secretary of Transportation to adjust this amount
annually for inflation.
    The inflation rate on purchases by state and local governments for
the current year is calculated by dividing the price deflator for the
fourth quarter of 2008 (140.964) by 2006's third quarter price deflator
(128.352). The result of the calculation is 1.0982, which represents an
inflation rate of 1.098% from the third quarter of 2005. Multiplying
the $20,410,000 figure for disadvantaged business enterprises in
Department of Transportation financial assistance programs by 1.0982
equals $22,414,262, which will be rounded off to the nearest $10,000,
or $22,410,000.
    Therefore, if a firm's gross receipts, averaged over the firm's
previous three fiscal years, exceeds $22,410,000, then it exceeds the
small business size limit for participation by disadvantaged business
enterprises in Department of Transportation financial assistance
programs contained in part 26.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

    Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)), an agency
may waive the normal notice and comment requirements if it finds, for
good cause, that they are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to
the public interest. The Department finds that notice and comment for
this rule is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest because it
relates only to ministerial updates of business size standards and
gross receipts caps to account for inflation, which does not change the
standards or caps in real dollar terms. These updates will assist
entities attempting to be part of the Department's DBE program and
should not be unnecessarily delayed. Accordingly, the Department finds
good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive notice and opportunity for
public comment. The Department also finds good cause under 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(3) to make this rule effective upon publication.

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This rule is nonsignificant for purposes of the Executive Order
12866 and the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and
Procedures. The rule is a ministerial adjustment for inflation of a
statutory small business size standard that does not change the
standard in real dollar terms. It will not impose burdens on any
regulated parties. In addition, this rule would not create a serious
inconsistency with any other agency's action or materially alter the
budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs. Consequently, a full regulatory evaluation is not required.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354,
5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have evaluated the effects of this action on
small entities and have determined that the action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Therefore, the Department certifies that this rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    The rule is a ministerial update to the dollar limits and size
limits to define small businesses for the Department's Airport
Concessions Disadvantaged

Business Enterprise Program and for the Department's Financial
Assistance Program for Disadvantaged Business Enterprises. The only
effect of the rule on small entities is to allow some small businesses
to continue to participate in the ACDBE and the DBE programs by
adjusting for inflation. Therefore, the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism Assessment)

    This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, and the Department has
determined that this action would not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. The
Department has also determined that this action would not preempt any
State law or State regulation or affect the States' ability to
discharge traditional State governmental functions.

Executive Order 13084

    This rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13084 (``Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments''). Because this rule would
not significantly or uniquely affect the Indian tribal communities, and
would not impose substantial direct compliance costs, the funding and
consultation requirements of the Executive Order do not apply.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This rule does not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4; 109 Stat. 48).
This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of
$128.1 million or more in any one year (2 U.S.C. 1532). Further, in
compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, the
Department will evaluate any regulatory action that might be proposed
in subsequent stages of the proceeding to assess the effects on State,
local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Additionally, the
definition of ``Federal Mandate'' in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
excludes financial assistance of the type in which State, local, or
tribal governments have authority to adjust their participation in the
program in accordance with changes made in the program by the Federal
Government. Since this rule pertains to a nondiscrimination requirement
and affects only Federal financial assistance programs, the Unfunded
Mandates Act does not apply.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding
intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do
not apply to this program.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501),
Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor,
or require through regulations. The Department has determined that this
rule does not contain collection of information requirements for the
purposes of the PRA.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The Department has analyzed this rule for the purpose of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) and has
determined that the inflationary adjustment for dollar limits and size
limits used to define small businesses that can participate in the
Department's Disadvantaged Business Enterprises programs, would not
have any effect on the quality of the environment.

Regulation Identification Number

    A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each
regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations.
The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda
in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of
this document can be used to cross reference this action with the
Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 23

    Administrative practice and procedure, Airports, Civil rights,
Concessions, Government contracts, Grant programs--transportation,
Minority businesses, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 26

    Administrative practice and procedure, Airports, Civil rights,
Concessions, Government contracts, Grant programs--transportation,
Highways and roads, Mass transportation, Minority business, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of
Transportation amends 49 CFR parts 23 and 26 as follows:

PART 23--PARTICIPATION OF DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE IN
AIRPORT CONCESSIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 23 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 47107; 42 U.S.C. 2000d; 49 U.S.C. 322;
Executive Order 12138.

0
2. Revise Sec.  23.33 to read as follows:

Sec.  23.33   What size standards do recipients use to determine the
eligibility of ACDBEs?

    (a) As a recipient, you must, except as provided in paragraph (b)
of this section, treat a firm as a small business eligible to be
certified as an ACDBE if its gross receipts, averaged over the firm's
previous three fiscal years, do not exceed $52.47 million.
    (b) The following types of businesses have size standards that
differ from the standard set forth in paragraph (a) of this section:
    (1) Banks and financial institutions: $1 billion in assets;
    (2) Car rental companies: $69.97 million average annual gross
receipts over the firm's three previous fiscal years, as adjusted by
the Department for inflation every two years from April 3, 2009.
    (3) Pay telephones: 1,500 employees;
    (4) Automobile dealers: 350 employees.
    (c) The Department adjusts the numbers in paragraphs (a) and (b)(2)
of this section using the Department of Commerce price deflators for
purchases by State and local governments as the basis for this
adjustment. The Department publishes a Federal Register document
informing the public of each adjustment.

PART 26--PARTICIPATION BY DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISES IN
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

0
3. The authority citation for 49 CFR part 26 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  23 U.S.C. 324; 42 U.S.C. 2000d, et seq.; 49 U.S.C
1615, 47107, 47113, 47123; Sec. 1101(b), Pub. L. 105-178, 112 Stat.
107, 113.

0
4. Revise Sec.  26.65 to read as follows:

Sec.  26.65   What rules govern business size determinations?

    (a) To be an eligible DBE, a firm (including its affiliates) must
be an existing small business, as defined by

Small Business Administration (SBA) standards. As a recipient, you must
apply current SBA business size standard(s) found in 13 CFR part 121
appropriate to the type(s) of work the firm seeks to perform in DOT-
assisted contracts.
    (b) Even if it meets the requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section, a firm is not an eligible DBE in any Federal fiscal year if
the firm (including its affiliates) has had average annual gross
receipts, as defined by SBA regulations (see 13 CFR 121.402), over the
firm's previous three fiscal years, in excess of $22.41 million.
    (c) The Department adjusts the number in paragraph (b) of this
section annually using the Department of Commerce price deflators for
purchases by State and local governments as the basis for this
adjustment.

    Issued this 22nd day of March, 2009, at Washington, DC.
Ray LaHood,
Secretary of Transportation.
[FR Doc. E9-7118 Filed 4-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 21, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16893-16894]
[FR Doc No: 2023-05743]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2023-0171]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Corpus Christi Bay, Corpus Christi, TX

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
certain navigable waters in the Corpus Christi Bay. The safety zone is
needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from
potential hazards created by an acrobatic airshow near the Corpus
Christi Bayfront, Corpus Christi, Texas. Entry of vessels or persons
into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the
Captain of the Port Sector Corpus Christi or a designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 11:30 a.m. on May 4, 2023, through 4
p.m. on May 7, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Lieutenant Commander Anthony Garofalo, Sector Corpus
Christi Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 361-
939-5130, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
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 for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. We must
establish this safety zone immediately to protect personnel, vessels,
and the marine environment from potential hazards created by the
airshow and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period
and then to consider those comments before issuing the rule.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034. The Captain of the Port Sector Corpus Christi (COTP) has
determined that potential hazards associated with the airshow from
11:30 a.m. through 4 p.m. each day, starting on May 4, 2023 through May
7, 2023, will be a safety concern for anyone within the waters of the
Corpus Christi Bay on an area of 1.25 sq. miles on the following box;
27[deg]49'2.78'' N, 97[deg]23'16.1'' W to 27[deg]47'3.69'' N,
97[deg]23'14.62'' W to 27[deg]47'5.46'' N, 97[deg]22'41.02'' W to
27[deg]49'2.73'' N, 97[deg]22'42.97'' W to 27[deg]49'2.78'' N,
97[deg]23'16.10'' W. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of
vessels and persons on these navigable waters in the safety zone while
the airshow takes place in the Corpus Christi Bay.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from 11:30 a.m.
through 4 p.m. each day, starting on May 4, 2023 through May 7, 2023.
The safety zone will encompass certain navigable waters of the Corpus
Christi Bay and is defined by a 1.25 sq. miles box. The regulated area
encompasses the following coordinates; 27[deg]49'2.78'' N,
97[deg]23'16.1'' W to 27[deg]47'3.69'' N, 97[deg]23'14.62'' W to
27[deg]47'5.46'' N, 97[deg]22'41.02'' W to 27[deg]49'2.73'' N,
97[deg]22x42.97'' W to 27[deg]49'2.78'' N, 97[deg]23'16.10'' W. The
airshow display will take place in waters of the Corpus Christi Bay. No
vessel or person is permitted to enter the temporary safety zone during
the effective period without obtaining permission from the COTP or a
designated representative, who may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM
(156.8 MHz) or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Coast Guard will issue
Broadcast Notices to Mariners, Local Notices to Mariners, and/or Safety
Marine Information Broadcasts as appropriate.

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. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and duration of the safety zone. The temporary safety zone
will be enforced for a short period of 4.5 hours, each day. The zone is
limited to 1.25 sq. miles box in the navigable waters of the Corpus
Christi Bay. The rule does not completely restrict the traffic within a
waterway and allows mariners to request permission to enter the zone.

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
temporary 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
Directive 023-01, and Environmental Planning, COMDTINST 5090.1
(series), 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 this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves establishment of a temporary safety
zone for navigable waters of the Corpus Christi Bay in a zone defined
by 1.25 sq. miles on the following box; 27[deg]49'2.78'' N,
97[deg]23'16.1'' W to 27[deg]47''3.69'' N, 97[deg]23'14.62'' W to
27[deg]47'5.46'' N, 97[deg]22'41.02'' W to 27[deg]49'2.73'' N,
97[deg]22'42.97'' W to 27[deg]49'2.78'' N, 97[deg]23'16.10'' W. The
safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine
environment from potential hazards created by an airshow in the waters
of the Corpus Christi Bay. It is categorically excluded from further
review under paragraph L60 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction
Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration
supporting this determination is available in the docket. For
instructions on locating the docket, see 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:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00171.1, Revision No. 01.3.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0171 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0171  Safety Zone; Corpus Christi Bay, Corpus Christi,
TX.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: all navigable
waters of the Corpus Christi Bay encompassed by a 1.25 sq. miles on the
following box; 27[deg]49'2.78'' N, 97[deg]23'16.1'' W to
27[deg]47''3.69'' N, 97[deg]23'14.62'' W to 27[deg]47'5.46'' N,
97[deg]22'41.02'' W to 27[deg]49'2.73'' N, 97[deg]22'42.97'' W to
27[deg]49'2.78'' N, 97[deg]23'16.10'' W.
    (b) Effective period. This section is effective from 11:30 a.m. on
May 4, 2023, through 4 p.m. on May 7, 2023. It is subject to
enforcement from 11:30 a.m. through 4 p.m. each day.
    (c) Regulations. (1) According to the general regulations in Sec.
165.23, entry into this temporary safety zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Corpus Christi (COTP) or a
designated representative. They may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM
(156.8 MHz) or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (2) If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply
with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.
    (d) Information broadcasts. The COTP or a designated representative
will inform the public of the enforcement times and date for this
safety zone through Broadcast Notices to Mariners, Local Notices to
Mariners, and/or Safety Marine Information Broadcasts as appropriate.

    Dated: March 14, 2023
J.B. Gunning,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Corpus Christi.
[FR Doc. 2023-05743 Filed 3-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


1 Terrestrial Investigation Model x 2.0 Inhalation Exposure 2 Development Goals ° Tool reliant on existing fate data sets ° Consider adapting existing Agency approaches ° Relate exposure to available toxicity information 3 Inhalation Conceptual Model Directly applied spray Volatilization of residues on plant canopy Volatilization of residues in soil Suspension of residues associated with soil particulate  + /  X  proposed model addresses +/ optional approaches can address X not addressed 4 Assumes a complete dispersion of spray mass within the column of air for the duration of the exposure window Inhalation of Directly Applied Spray DID mg kg A RHF V BW rate respired inhalation ( / ) ( )( / ( )( )

( )( )

= 1 1000 where: DID = Droplet Inhalation Dose mg/ kg A rate = application rate from label converted to mg/ m2 RH = height of spray release ( m), user defined ( defaults 1 m ground spray, 3 m aerial application)

F respired = volumetric droplet spectrum segregated by upper size limit of respired particles for birds ( 7 um)

V inhalation = inhalation volume ( L)

1000 = units conversion m3 to L BW = bird weight ( kg) 5 Inhalation of Vapor Phase Pesticide VID mg/ kg = ( Cair)( Vinhalation )

body weight where: VID = Vapor Inhalation Dose Cair = concentration of the pesticide in air at time t ( mg/ L)

Vinhalation = inhalation volume ( L)

body weight = bird weight ( kg) 6 Inhalation Volume where: Vinhalation = Inhalation volume ( L)

Rrate = respiration rate ( l/ min),

ED = Exposure duration ( min)

( )( )

V R ED inhalation rate = 7 Inhalation Rate R BW rate = × ( ).

284 3 1000 0 77 where: Rrate = Respiration rate ( L/ min)

BW = bird weight ( kg) 8 Concentration In Air ° Approaches by OPP and other programs within the Agency ° Available data set on physical chemical properties 9 Concentration In Air ( cont.)

USEPA's Office of Solid Waste Hazardous Waste Identification Rule ( HWIR) Farm Foodchain Model ( USEPA, 1999)

PV Cv Bv Vg ave ag air = ( )( )( )

1000   where: PV = plant concentration due to vapor ( mg/ kg DW)

CvAve = the vapor phase concentration of chemical in air ( µ g/ m3)

Bv = the air to plant biotransfer factor ([ ug/ g DW]/[ ug/ g air])

Vgag = an empirical correction factor ( unitless)

1000 = a units conversion factor ( g/ m3)

 air = the density of air ( constant at 1.19 g/ L) 10 The Air to Plant Biotransfer Factor ° Important component of the HWIR model ° Each compartment is in mass terms ° Plant component is dry weight 11 The Air to Plant Biotransfer Factor ( )

Bv B MAF Bv air vol leaf leaf ecf =

          9 100 100 where, Bv = the air to plant biotransfer factor ([ µ g/ g DW]/[ ug/ g air])

 air = the density of air ( constant at 1.19 g/ L)

Bvol = the biotransfer factor (( µ g/ L freshweight leaf)/ µ g/ L air)

MAFleaf = the moisture content in leaf (%)

 leaf = the density of the leaf ( g/ L fw)

Bvecf = the empirical correction factor for Bv ( unitless) 12 The Air to Plant Biotransfer Factor Key to Bv is Bvol, or the volumetric biotransfer for fresh plant material log Bvol = 1.065 log Kow  log( H/ RT)  1.654 where: Bvol = the biotransfer factor (( ug/ L fresh weight leaf)/ ug/ L air)

Kow = octanol/ water partition coefficient H = Henry's Law constant ( atm/ m3/ mol)

R = the universal gas constant ( 8.205E 05 atm/ m3/ mol K)

T = air temperature ( constant at 298.1 K) 13 Could HWIR Approach be Adopted for Avian Inhalation?

° HWIR equilibrium model is for continuous sources of atmospheric contaminant ° No limitation to contaminant mass applied ° Pesticide application deals with finite masses of applied chemical ° Equilibrium models for pesticides should conserve pesticide mass applied 14 Other OPP Approaches to Two Compartment models ° Interim rice model for sediment: water pesticide concentration estimation ° Equilibrium based ° Mass of applied pesticide is conserved ° Relies of existing chemical property/ fate data set 15 Two Compartment Model Sediment/ Water W M V m K con T T sed d = + 109 where: MT = the total mass of pesticide in kg applied to 1 ha VT = volume of water msed, = the mass of sediment 109 = units convert for mass from kg to µ g.

Kd = the sediment: water partition coefficient 16 Two Compartment Model Plant/ Air ( )

C C m V m B air plant plant air plant vol plant = +

       1000   where: Cair = concentration in air mg/ L Cplant = the pesticide residue in plants ( mg/ kg fresh weight)

from model predictions for diet mplant = the mass of plant per hectare ( kg/ ha)

Vair = the volume of air 1 ha to crop canopy height ( m3)

1000 = units conversion m3 to L Bvol = the volume based biotransfer factor (( ug/ L freshweight leaf)/ ug/ L air) as calculated by the HWIR model  plant = the density of the crop tissue assumed as fresh leaf kg/ L 17 Limitations to Equilibrium Model ° Does not account for application to soil surface ° Bare ground applications ° Unintercepted pesticide ° Equilibrium assumption does not readily work with air exchange ° Does not address relationship between height in canopy and residue ° Basing plant associated mass on Fletcher et al. residues 18 " Fletcher Residues" for Air Concentration Estimation ° Foliage residues are assumed to be only a function of application rate ° Does not consider the growth stage of the plant ° Canopy cover or percent cover ° Biomass ° Relating residues back to mass applied to plants may over or underestimate application rate ° Need to explore alternative residue estimate methods eg. Residue mg/ kg = application rate X percent cover biomass 19 Scenarios for Inhalation Exposure ° Droplet Exposure   First time step following application ° Vapor Phase Exposure   Every time step bird is on field   In field residents ° Active feeding periods on field ° Inactive periods when on field   Note: current model does not adjust respiration for inactivity   Edge residents ° Active feeding periods on field 20 Relating Inhalation Exposure to Available Toxicity Data ° No Agency requirement for acute inhalation toxicity testing in birds ° TIM 2.1 relies on avian single oral dose toxicity ° Model goal is to evaluate cumulative exposure from multiple routes ° Need a method to relate inhaled dose exposure to available toxicity endpoints 21 SAP 2000 ° Presented conceptual approach of using inhalation to oral relationships for other taxa to birds:

° SAP cautioned that such approaches must consider differences in respiratory physiology LD50 inhlation mammal = LD50 inhalation bird LD50 oral mammal LD50 oral bird LD50 inhlation mammal = LD50 inhalation bird * X LD50 oral mammal LD50 oral bird 22 Respiratory Physiology ° Agency does not have an avian respiratory toxicokinetic model ° Agency evaluated basic mammalian and avian respiratory system differences that may affect toxicant availability 23 Factors Affecting Uptake by Diffusion ° Agency focus on surface area and exchange tissue thickness ° Other factors remain to be evaluated  Cross current vs. alveolar systems and concentration gradient Fick's law of diffusion   Q =  D* A*(  u/   x)*   t   Q  mass uptake,

D  chemical specific diffusion constant,

A  surface area of the diffusion site,

  u  concentration gradient,

  x  tissue thickness,

  t  duration of diffusion 24 Respiratory Surface Area ° Respiratory surface area is 1.16 times greater in birds than mammals ° Relationship is stable for body weights of 1 to 2000 g Surface area birds = 60.6* BW0.883 Surface area mammals= 52.1* BW0.883 Maina et al. ( 1989) 25 Exchange Tissue Thickness ° Relationship between birds and mammals is not constant across all weights ° Avian exchange tissue thickness is from half to one third mammal thickness for bodyweights 1 to 2000g Mean harmonic thickness birds= 116.51* BW0.044 Mean harmonic thickness mammals = 237.66* BW0.090 Maina et al. ( 1989) 26 Relating Area and Thickness to Relative Diffusion Rate ° From Fick's law diffusion rate is directly proportional to: Q = surface area / thickness ° Comparing Q for birds and mammals yields relative differences in diffusion rate ° Qavian/ Qmammal ranges from 2.4 to 3.4 for bodyweights of 1 to 2000g ° For a given inhaled mass, birds will absorb more than mammals by at least a factor equivalent to Qavian/ Qmammal 27 Developing a Route Relative Potency Factor Fre = Oral LD50( mammal) mg/ kg( Qa/ Qm)

Inhalation LD50 ( mammal) mg/ kg where, Fre = the avian route equivalency factor Qa/ Qm = the ratio of avian to mammalian pulmonary membrane diffusion rates 28 Applying Fre to Inhalation Exposure Estimates ° Uses existing toxicity data for mammals ° Comparison with avian oral toxicity allows for consideration of biochemical differences in sensitivity ° Considers some basic physiological differences between bird and mammal respiratory systems equivalent oral dose mg/ kg = ( model inhalation dose mg/ kg)( Fre) 29 Limitations to Fre Approach ° Assumes that toxic modes of action are similar for oral and respiratory route in birds and mammals ° Cross current vs alveolar structure not addressed ° Does not consider potential enzymatic differences in avian and mammalian lung ° Assumes dose response relationship is similar for oral and inhalation routes 30 Mortality 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Exposure Scenario Mortlity Rate (

n=

10000) Food and Dew Food, Dew, Vapor Inhalation Food, Dew, Spray Inhalation Food, Dew, Vapor, Spray Inhalation Impact of Inhalation Exposure on Risk Assessment Chem X Scenario ° Field Resident Insectivore ° 0.5 lb ai/ acre, aerial application at 8am ° Henry's constant 2.02 E 07 Average Total Dose at Death 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 Exposure Scenario m g/

kg oral dos e equivale nt Food and Dew Food, Dew, Vapor Inhalation Food, Dew, Spray Inhalation Food, Dew, Vapor, Spray Inhalation 31 Mortality 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Exposure Scenario Mortlity Rate (

n=

10000) Food and Dew Food, Dew , Vapor, Spray Inhalation Henry's 2.02 E 07 Food, dew , Vapor, Spray Inhalation: Henry's 2.02 E 05 Average Total Dose at Death 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 Exposure Scenario m g/

k g oral dos e e quivale nt Food and Dew Food, Dew, Vapor, Spray Inhalation: henry's 2.02 E 07 Food, Dew, Vapor, Spray inhlation: Henry's 2.02 E 05 The Impact of Alternative Henry's Constants on Risk Assessment 32 Next Steps ° Examination and comparison of air concentration models with available air measurement data ° Sensitivity analysis ( parameter influences on exposure estimates and risk estimates)

° Modifications for other factors influencing respiratory toxicity ° Longer term investigation of PBTK models