[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 101 (Friday, May 24, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31457-31459]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12397]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0291]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Taunton River, Fall River and
Somerset, MA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to modify the operating schedule that
governs the Veterans Memorial Bridge across the Taunton River, mile
2.1, between Fall River and Somerset, Massachusetts. The bridge owner,
Massachusetts Department of Transportation, submitted a request to
reduce the hours the bridge is crewed based upon infrequent requests to
open the draw. It is expected that this change to the regulations would
provide relief to the bridge owner from crewing the bridge while
continuing to meet the reasonable needs of navigation.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before July 23, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2013-0291 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries
accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
federal holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these
four methods.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Mr. John W. McDonald, Project Officer, First Coast
Guard District Bridge Program, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Tables of Acronyms

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Sec.  Section Symbol
U.S.C. United States Code

A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2013-0291), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online (http://www.regulations.gov), or by fax, mail or hand delivery,
but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online
via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received by the
Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax,
hand delivery, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having
been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket
Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding
your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number USCG-2013-0291 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated with
this rulemaking. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery,
submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail
and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all
comments and material received during the comment period and may change
the rule based on your comments.

2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number (USCG-2013-0291) in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with
this rulemaking. You may also visit either the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of
Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC, 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. We have an agreement with the Department of
Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.

3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

4. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one using one of the four methods specified under
ADDRESSES. Please explain why one would be beneficial. If we determine
that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and
place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The Veterans Memorial Bridge at mile 2.1, across the Taunton River
between Somerset and Fall River, Massachusetts, has a vertical
clearance of 60 feet at mean high water and 66 feet at mean low water.
The horizontal clearance is 200 feet between the bridge protective
fenders. The drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR
117.5.
    The waterway users are predominantly seasonal recreational vessels.
    The Veterans Memorial Bridge is a double leaf bascule highway
bridge opened to traffic in 2011, at mile 2.1, upstream from the
existing Brightman Street Route 6 highway bridge at mile 1.8, across
the Taunton River.
    The owner of the bridge, Massachusetts Department of
Transportation, submitted a request to the Coast Guard to change the
drawbridge operating regulations that presently require the draw to be
crewed twenty four hours a day and open on signal at all times.
    Under this proposed rule the draw would open on signal between 7
a.m. and 3 p.m., and from 3 p.m. through 7 a.m. the draw would open on
signal after at least a two hour advance notice is given by calling the
number posted at the bridge.

 C. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to change the drawbridge operation
regulations at 33 CFR 117.619 by adding a paragraph, (f), that would
allow the draw to be crewed between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., and be on a two
hour on call basis at all other times.
    As a result of the seasonal recreational vessel traffic and the
high vertical clearance under the bridge, 60 feet at mean high water
and 66 feet at mean low water, the bridge has received few requests to
open during the past two years since it was opened to vehicular
traffic.
    Since the bridge opened it has received the following number of
requests to open: 21 openings in 2011, 22 openings in 2012 and 4
openings in 2013, January through March.
    Based on the above information, the Coast Guard believes it is
reasonable to allow the Veterans Memorial Bridge to be crewed between 7
a.m. and 3 p.m. and be on a two hour advance notice at all other times.
This decision was based on the few number requests to open the bridge
the past two years and the high vertical clearance under the draw.

 D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on 14 of these statutes or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Order 12866, or under
section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget
has not reviewed it under those Orders. We believe that this rule is
not a significant regulatory action because the bridge will still open
for all vessel traffic at all times provided the advance notice is
given 3 p.m. to 7 a.m. by calling the number posted at the bridge.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 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 proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
    This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of
which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels
needing to transit through the bridge.
    This action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: The
bridge will continue to open on signal from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. and from 3
p.m. to 7 a.m. after a two hour advance notice is given. Additionally,
the bridge has a vertical clearance of 60 feet at mean high water and
66 feet at mean low water which allows many vessels to pass through the
bridge without a need for an opening.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    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 proposed 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, above.
    The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

5. Federalism

    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 proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

6. 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.

7. 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 proposed rule will not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would 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.

12. Energy Effects

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' under
Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01, and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have
made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category
of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule simply promulgates
the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. This rule is
categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the
Instruction.
    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are not required for this rule. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of significant environmental
impact from the proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
0
2. In Sec.  33 CFR 117.619, add paragraph (f) to read as follows:

Sec.  117.619  Taunton River.

* * * * *
    (f) The draw of the Veterans Memorial Bridge, mile 2.1, across the
Taunton River between Fall River and Somerset, shall operate as
follows:
    (1) From 7 a.m. through 3 p.m. the draw shall open on signal.
    (2) From 3 p.m. through 7 a.m. the draw shall open on signal
provided a two hour advance notice is given by calling the number
posted at the bridge.

    Dated: May 10, 2013.
V.B. Gifford, Jr.,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, First Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2013-12397 Filed 5-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: October 13, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 196)]
[Notices]
[Page 52475]
[DOCID:fr13oc09-53]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP07-32-008]

Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP; Notice of Application

October 2, 2009.
    Take notice that on September 28, 2009, Gulf South Pipeline
Company, LP (Gulf South), filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission) an application under section 7(c) of the
Natural Gas Act (NGA) seeking authorization to amend its existing
certificate to reduce to the maximum certificated capacity on the East
Southeast Expansion Project facilities to reflect refined flow
characteristics after a year of operational experience, all as more
fully described in the application.
    This filing may be also viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov
using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last
three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify Federal and State agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all Federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to: J.
Kyle Stephens, Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, Boardwalk Pipeline
Partners, LP, 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, Texas 77046, at
713-47908033 or fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, before the
comment date of this notice, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to
intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules
of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the
Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party
status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary
of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the
applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of
filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant
and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the
proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the
proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing''
link.
    Comment Date: October 16, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-24498 Filed 10-9-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 116 (Thursday, June 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35215-35216]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15003]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0464; FRL-9318-8]

Notice of EPA Workshop on Sanitary Sewer Overflows and Peak Wet
Weather Discharges

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Office of Wastewater Management of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency is holding a workshop to solicit the views of
stakeholders concerning a number of issues. These include views on how
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations
should apply to municipal sanitary sewer collection systems, sanitary
sewer overflows (SSOs), and peak wet weather discharges at publicly
owned treatment works (POTW) treatment plants. EPA will also seek views
on the 2005 draft Peak Flows Policy. The workshop will include a
facilitated discussion with representatives of organizations that
represent POTWs, state NPDES permitting authorities, and non-for-profit
environmental groups. EPA invites other interested members of the
public to observe the workshop and to offer verbal comments at
designated times during the workshop or to submit written comments to
the Agency.

DATES: The workshop will be held on July 14, from 8 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.
and on July 15, from 8 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. If you plan to participate in
the workshop as an observer, EPA requests that you pre-register by July
6, 2011 at http://www.epa.gov/npdes/sso.

ADDRESSES: The workshop will be held at the Ronald Reagan Building and
International Trade Center, Horizon Ballroom, located in Washington, DC
at 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about this
notice, contact Greg Schaner, EPA Headquarters, Office of Water, Office
of Wastewater Management at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Properly designed, operated, and maintained sanitary sewer systems
are meant to collect and transport all of the sewage that flows into
them to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW). However, occasional
discharges of raw sewage from municipal sanitary sewers occur in almost
every system. These types of discharges are called sanitary sewer
overflows (SSOs). SSOs have a variety of causes, including but not
limited to blockages, line breaks, sewer defects that allow storm water
and groundwater to overload the system, lapses in sewer system
operation and maintenance, power failures, inadequate sewer design and
vandalism. EPA estimates that there are at least 23,000-75,000 SSOs per
year (not including sewage backups into buildings). The untreated
sewage from these overflows can contaminate our waters, causing serious
water quality problems. It can also back-up into basements, causing
property damage and threatening public health.
    Additionally, aging sewer line infrastructure in many communities
allows rain and snow melt to enter sanitary sewer systems and cause
excess flow at the treatment plant. During significant wet weather
events it is possible for influent flows to exceed the treatment
capacity of existing secondary treatment units. Known as ``peak
flows,'' these wet weather flows are sometimes diverted around
secondary treatment units and then either recombined with flows from
the secondary treatment units or discharged directly into waterways
from the treatment plant in order to prevent any damage to the
treatment facility. Operators of wastewater treatment plants must
manage these high flows to ensure continued operation of the treatment
process.
    For additional background on SSOs and peak wet weather discharges,
refer to the ``background'' section of EPA's notice announcing the 2010
Listening Sessions at 75 FR 30395 (June 1, 2010) and to information
included on EPA's Web site at http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=4.

II. 2010 Listening Sessions

    In 2010, EPA held several listening sessions to obtain information
from the

public regarding the potential modification to the NPDES regulations to
address SSOs and other types of peak wet weather discharges. See 75 FR
30395 (June 1, 2010). Participants in the sessions offered both verbal
and written comments. The Agency received 235 written comments to the
docket. You can view these comments at http://www.regulations.gov,
under Docket ID  EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0464.

III. Purpose of SSO/Peak Wet Weather Flow Workshop

    As a follow-up to the 2010 Listening Sessions, EPA will hold a 1\1/
2\ day workshop on July 14-15, 2011 in Washington, DC. The purpose of
this workshop is to provide interested parties and other members of the
public an opportunity to elaborate on their recommendations to the
Agency with respect to actions that could be taken to strengthen the
permitting program's approach to regulating SSOs and peak wet weather
discharges. EPA has invited several stakeholder groups representing
non-governmental interests, POTWs and collection systems, and state
permitting authorities to recommend members of their community to
participate in the workshop as experts. In addition to eliciting the
views of the representative groups, EPA will also invite comments
during the meeting from any member of the public who wishes to observe
and participate at the workshop.
    The specific issues that EPA is seeking feedback on have
significant overlap with those highlighted for the 2010 listening
sessions. See 75 FR 30399-30401 (June 1, 2010). For example, EPA will
be interested in the views of the representatives and observers on
whether and to what extent specific NPDES permit requirements should be
developed to address the following:
     How SSOs are reported to EPA or state permitting
authorities and documented in POTW records, and how and when the public
is notified of overflows;
     What components of POTW programs for capacity, management,
operations, and maintenance (CMOM) should be made part of standard
NPDES permit conditions;
     Whether to require NPDES permits for ``municipal satellite
collection systems'', and what types of requirements should such
permits include; and
     Are there any circumstances under which an SSO may be
authorized under an NPDES permit.
    EPA will also seek input on the disposition of the 2005 draft Peak
Flows Policy (see http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/wetweather.cfm) that
pertains to wet weather diversions at POTW treatment plants.
    It is not EPA's objective during the workshop to establish
consensus among the parties or to obtain a collective set of
recommendations. Rather, it is EPA's intention to obtain individual
input from interested parties so that the Agency can better understand
the differences and commonalities among the individual recommendations.
In this regard, EPA has determined that this workshop is not subject to
the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. 5 U.S.C.
Appendix 2.

IV. Participation in the Workshop

    Members of the public are welcome to participate as observers in
the workshop. The agenda will be structured to invite specific verbal
comments from observers on key issues. If you plan to participate as an
observer at the workshop, in order that EPA may properly anticipate the
correct number of people, EPA requests that you pre-register by July 6,
2011 at http://www.epa.gov/npdes/sso.

    Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

    Dated: June 7, 2011.
James A. Hanlon,
Director, Office of Wastewater Management.
[FR Doc. 2011-15003 Filed 6-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


                  BIOPESTICIDES REGISTRATION ACTION DOCUMENT

                                    Humates
(Humic acid; Humic acids, potassium Salts; Humic acids, sodium salts; and Humates derived from Leonardite)
                     PC Codes: 700132, 800286, and 021818

	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
	Office of Pesticide Programs
                Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division

                       (Last updated February 25, 2014)
	Table of Contents
I.	EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	1
II.	ACTIVE INGREDIENT OVERVIEW	2
III.	REGULATORY BACKGROUND	2
A.	Application for Pesticide Registration	2
B.	Food Clearances/Tolerances	3
IV.	RISK ASSESSMENT	3
A.	Product Analysis Assessment (40 CFR § 158.2030)	3
B.	Human Health Assessment	3
1.	Tier I Toxicology	3
2.	Tier II and Tier III Toxicity Studies	4
3.	Endocrine Disruptors	4
4.	Dose-Response Assessment	5
6.	Occupational Exposure and Risk Characterization	7
7.	Human Health Risk Characterization	7
C.	Environmental Assessment	8
1.	Ecological Hazards	8
2.	Environmental Fate and Ground Water Data	8
3.	Ecological Exposure and Risk Characterization	8
4.	Endangered Species Assessment	9
D.	Product Performance Data	9
V.	RISK MANAGEMENT DECISION	9
A.	Determination of Eligibility for Registration	9
B.	Regulatory Decision	10
C.	Environmental Justice	10
VI.	ACTIONS REQUIRED BY REGISTRANTS	10
A.	Reporting of Adverse Effects	11
B.	Reporting of Hypersensitivity Incidents	11
VII.	Appendix A.  Data Requirements (40 CFR Part 158, Subpart U)	12
VIII.	Appendix B. References	16
IX.	GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS	17

BIOPESTICIDES REGISTRATION ACTION DOCUMENT (BRAD) TEAM

Branch Chief
Linda A. Hollis, M.S.

Product Chemistry/Human Health Effects/Nontarget Organisms
Russell Jones, PhD, Senior Scientist
Sadaf Shaukat, Biologist

Regulatory Action Leader
Menyon Adams, Biologist

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Humates derived from Leonardite are collectively a new biochemical active ingredient (hereafter referred to as humates) intended for use as a plant growth regulator (PGR) to control the vegetative growth and maturation of agricultural and greenhouse crops. Treatment of plants with humates enhances root growth, improves the uptake of nitrogen, potassium and phosphate, increases the treated plants' ability to resist plant disease, and reduces the need to add soil nutrients and fertilizers during the growing season.

Humates are naturally occurring substances formed by the biodegradation of dead organic matter, and are often associated with deposits of coal, lignite and mudstone. They are ubiquitous in the environment in soil and water, including agricultural areas where crops are grown for human and animal consumption. Commonly used to condition soil, humates are widely regarded as being beneficial to plants. From a structural perspective, humates include a complex mixture of compounds, including humic acids and their potassium and sodium salts, fulvic acids, and humins, with humic acids being the major extractable component.

In terms of their safety to humans, including infants and children, humates have been previously evaluated and well-characterized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency). They are also listed among those substances that are exempt from the requirement of a tolerance under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) as either inert or active ingredients in a pesticide formulation when used  in accordance with good agricultural and/or manufacturing practices (40 CFR Part180.950 (e)).

BPPD has reviewed all of the data and other information submitted in support of the registration of humates as a PGR under Section 3(c)(5) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and has determined that the current data requirements (40 CFR part 158.2010 through 158.2070) for registration of a biochemical pesticide have been satisfied. Given that humates are of very low toxicity and present little, if any, risks to humans and the environment, EPA has concluded that it is in the best interest of the public to issue registrations for the manufacturing-use product (MP), PM-4300 Organic Acids (EPA File Symbol No. 82940-G) and the end-use product (EP), Phocon (EPA File Symbol No. 82940-E), which contain humates as the active ingredient. The basis for this decision is described in more detail in section IV of this draft Biopesticide Registration Action Document (BRAD).

On October 1, 2009, EPA announced a policy to provide a more meaningful opportunity for the public to participate in major registration decisions before they occur. According to this policy, EPA provides a public comment period prior to making a registration decision for the following types of applications:  new active ingredients; first food uses; first outdoor uses; first residential uses; or any other registration actions for which EPA believes there may be significant public interest.

Consistent with the policy of making registration decisions more transparent, humates are subject to a 15 day comment period as a "new active ingredient." The notice for this comment period includes the draft BRAD and draft labels for two products (PM-4300 Organic Acids (EPA File Symbol 82940-G) and Phocon (EPA File Symbol 82940-E)) that contain this new active ingredient. The docket identification (ID) number is EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0251.
For definitions of scientific terms, please refer to http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/glossary/.

ACTIVE INGREDIENT OVERVIEW

      Common Name: 			N/A

      Chemical Names:			Humates
      					Humic Acids, Potassium Salts
      					Humic Acids, Sodium Salts
      					Humates derived form Leonardite

      Trade & Other Names: 		N/A

      CAS Registry Number: 		N/A

      OPP Pesticide Chemical Code: 	700132
      					800286
      					021818

      Type of Pesticide:            		Biochemical Pesticide  -  Plant Growth Regulator

Biochemical Classification

On February 12, 2009, the Biochemical Classification Committee classified humates as a biochemical active ingredient, based upon the nontoxic mode of action as a PGR, natural occurrence in the environment, and history of human and animal exposure to humates with no toxic or other adverse effects.

For more information regarding product chemistry data requirements, please refer to Tables 1, 2, and 3 in Appendix A of this document.

REGULATORY BACKGROUND

Application for Pesticide Registration

On December 16, 2011, Ann Tillman of Pyxis regulatory Consulting, Inc., on behalf of Actagro LLC., 4110 136[th] St. NW, Gig Harbor, WA 98332, submitted applications to register an MP, "PM-4300 Organic Acids" (EPA File Symbol No. 82940-G), and an EP, "Phocon" (EPA File Symbol No. 82940-E), containing the new biochemical active ingredient, humates, at 18.5% and 12.0%, respectively. A notice of receipt (NOR) of the applications was published in the Federal Register on June 27, 2012, (77 FR 38285). No comments were received during the 30-day comment period following publication of the NOR.

Food Clearances/Tolerances

Residues resulting from the use of humates (humic acid; humic acids, potassium salts; humic acids, sodium salts) as either an inert or an active ingredient in a pesticide chemical formulation, including antimicrobial pesticide chemicals, are exempt from the requirement of a tolerance under FFDCA section 408, if such use is in accordance with good agricultural or manufacturing practices (40 CFR part 180.950 (e)). (Ref.1)

RISK ASSESSMENT

A. Product Analysis Assessment (40 CFR § 158.2030)

Biochemical pesticide product analysis data requirements include product chemistry and composition, analysis and certified limits, and physical and chemical characteristics. Product chemistry and composition data include information about the identity of the active ingredient, the manufacturing process, and discussion of the potential for formation of unintentional ingredients. Analysis and certified limits data include information on analysis of samples and certification of the upper and lower limits for the ingredients in a formulated product. Physical and chemical characteristics data describe basic characteristics of the registered pesticide products, including color, physical state, odor, stability, miscibility, pH, corrosion characteristics, viscosity and density.

EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) has assigned unique pesticide chemical (PC) codes to humic acid, humic acids, potassium salts, and humic acids, sodium salts (700132, 800286 and 021818, respectively), and all of the product analysis data required for an unconditional registration have been fulfilled. (See Tables 1 and 2 in Appendix A of this document for a summary of product chemistry and composition, analysis and certified limits, physical and chemical characteristics data.)

Human Health Assessment

Tier I Toxicology

All of the toxicology data requirements have been satisfied and support the proposed registration of humates as a biochemical PGR. The data and other information submitted are summarized below (see also Tables 3 and 4 in Appendix A of this document).

         a.       Acute Toxicity (OCSPP Guideline Nos. 870.1100, 870.1200, 870.1300, 870.2400, 870.2500, and 870.2600; Master Record Identification (MRID) Nos. 48711105, 48711106,48711107, 48711108, 48711109, 48711110, 49080301,  48711115 ):

Acute toxicity testing of a pesticide active ingredient and/or product is required to: 1) determine systemic toxicity from acute exposure via the dermal, inhalation and oral routes; 2) determine irritant effects from exposure to the eyes and skin; and 3) determine the potential for skin sensitization (allergic contact dermatitis). Acute Toxicity Categories I, II, III, or IV (Toxicity Category I indicates the highest toxicity, and Toxicity Category IV is the lowest) are assigned to an active ingredient and EPs containing that active ingredient, and are based on the hazard(s) identified from studies and/or other information submitted to support an application to register a pesticide in the U.S.

In an acute oral toxicity test in rats, the LD50 for a single dose of humic acids was >11,500 mg/kg (EAEMP, 1999). Further, the results from the Tier I acute testing on the MP classify humates in Toxicity Category IV for the dermal, oral, and inhalation routes of exposure, based on the doses tested in laboratory rats. In addition, minimal eye irritation cleared in less than 24 hours and slight dermal irritation resolved within 72 hours in rats, and humates were not dermal sensitizers in guinea pigs. (For the results of these studies (i.e., LD50, LC50), refer to Table 3 in Appendix A of this document.)

         b.       Subchronic Toxicity, Developmental Toxicity, and Mutagenicity (OCSPP Guideline Nos. 870.3100, 870.3250, 870.3465; 870.3700, 870.5100, 870.5300, 870.5375; MRID Nos. 48975101, 48975102):

The data submitted to fulfill the requirement for a Bacterial Reverse Mutation Test (OCSPP 870.5100) demonstrated that humates did not cause base pair changes or frame shift mutations, and there was no evidence of cytotoxicity at highest dose tested.

In lieu of conducting guideline studies, rationales were submitted to address the following:  90-Day Oral (OCSPP 870.3100), 90-Day Dermal (OCSPP 870.3250), 90-Day Inhalation (OCSPP 870-3465) and Prenatal Development (OCSPP 870.3700) toxicity studies, and the in vitro Mammalian Cell Assay (OCSPP 870.5300/5375). BPPD determined that the rationales are acceptable, based on the results of the studies conducted with humates as the test substance and its presence as a natural component of soil and water with no known adverse effects to humans and the environment.

Tier II and Tier III Toxicity Studies

Tier II and Tier III toxicity testing was not required due to humates' low toxicity and the low levels of human exposure expected from its intended use as a PGR.

Endocrine Disruptors

As required by the Administrator under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) section 408(p), the EPA has developed the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) and has begun to implement the screening program that is to be used to test all pesticides in order to determine whether certain substances (including pesticide active and other ingredients) may have an effect in humans or wildlife similar to an effect produced by a "naturally occurring estrogen, or other such endocrine effects as the Administrator may designate." FFDCA section 408(p)(4) authorizes the Administrator, by order, to exempt from the requirements of the Estrogenic Substances Screening Program a biologic substance or other substance if a determination is made that the substance is not anticipated to produce any effect in humans similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogenic substance. Between October 2009 and February 2010, the EPA issued test orders/data call-ins for the first group of 67 chemicals, which contains 58 pesticide active ingredients and 9 inert ingredients. A second list of chemicals identified for screening under the EDSP was published on June 14, 2013, and includes some pesticides scheduled for registration review and chemicals found in water. Humates are not among the group of pesticide active ingredients on the lists to be screened under the EDSP.
The Agency believes that humates would not likely produce any effect in humans similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogenic substance.  As such, and pursuant to Section 408(p)(4), EPA will determine in the future whether it can exempt humates from the requirements of the Section 408(p) EDSP.  In the event the EPA does determine to exempt this substance from the EDSP, an order will be issued.
For further information on the status of the EDSP, the policies and procedures, the lists of chemicals, future lists, the test guidelines, and the Tier 1 screening battery, please visit our website at http://www.epa.gov/endo/.

Dose-Response Assessment

No toxicological endpoints were identified for humates; therefore, a dose-response assessment was not required.

	5.  Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) Considerations

Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the exemption is "safe." Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines "safe" to mean that "there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information." This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings but does not include occupational exposure. Pursuant to section 408(c)(2)(B) of FFDCA, in establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA, which require EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance exemption and to "ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue...." Additionally, section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA requires that EPA consider "available information concerning the cumulative effects of [a particular pesticide's] . . . residues and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity."

EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide through food, drinking water, and other routes as a result of pesticide use in residential settings.

Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information, and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability, and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Based on the acute toxicity data and information discussed previously and presented in Table 3 in Appendix A of this document, the data requirements for a human health dietary risk assessment for humates have been fulfilled.

      a.    Aggregate Exposure

In examining aggregate exposure, section 408 of FFDCA directs EPA to consider available information concerning exposures from the pesticide residue in food and all other non-occupational exposures, including drinking water from ground or surface water, pesticide use in gardens, residential and other lawns and landscapes, and buildings (residential and other indoor uses). EPA expects the aggregate exposure to residues of humates from the PGR use to be negligible when compared to the ordinary, everyday levels to which individuals are already exposed in the natural environment, since humates are commonly found in soil and water. The aggregate exposure potential for humates is discussed below.

Food Exposure and Risk Characterization: Since humates are common components of agricultural soil, EPA expects that human dietary exposure to residues of humates resulting from its pesticidal uses would be negligible in comparison to naturally occurring humates. Further, residues of humates from use as a PGR would be very low, since they are not absorbed by plants, and rainfall and irrigation would reduce the amount of applied product during the growing season. In the unlikely event that any residues of the pesticide remain in or on consumed food, no adverse effects would be expected, based on the lack of toxicity demonstrated in the submitted studies and other information described previously and presented in Table 3 in Appendix A of this document.

Drinking Water Exposure and Risk Characterization: According to the directions for use on the EP label, humates are not to be applied directly to bodies of water. It is possible, however, that some residues may reach bodies of water via runoff or spray drift.  Since humates are common components of water, EPA expects that human exposure to residues of humates in drinking water resulting from its use as a PGR would be negligible in comparison to naturally occurring humates.  In the unlikely event that any residues of the pesticide remain in drinking water, no adverse effects would be expected, based on the lack of toxicity demonstrated in the submitted studies and other information described previously and presented in Table 3 in Appendix A of this document.

Non-occupational, Residential Exposure and Risk Characterization: The PGR use of this active ingredient is intended only for agricultural environments, so non-occupational and residential exposures are expected to be minimal to non-existent. Should exposure occur, the risks to humans is expected to below level of concern, based upon the low toxicity of humates demonstrated in the data and other information submitted and evaluated by the EPA. (Ref. 1; see also Section IV.B.1.a  of this BRAD).

	b. Cumulative Effects from Substances with a Common Mechanism of Toxicity.

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

Humates are not known to have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances; therefore, cumulative effects with other substances are not anticipated. For information regarding EPA's efforts to identify chemicals that may have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

	c.   Determination of Safety for the U.S. Population, Infants and Children

Based on its analyses of the submitted toxicity data (refer to Section IV.B.1. a and Table 3 in Appendix A), EPA concludes that there are no threshold effects of concern to infants, children, or adults when PGR products containing humates as an active ingredient are used as labeled in accordance with good agricultural practices. No toxicological effects or endpoints were identified in mammalian studies.  The Agency does not expect that infants and children will have special sensitivity to residues of humates.  As a result, no additional margin of exposure (safety) is necessary to protect infants and children and that not adding an additional margin of exposure (safety) will be safe for infants and children.

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

   1. Occupational Exposure and Risk Characterization

An occupational exposure assessment was not conducted and is not required for biochemical pesticides (40 CFR part 158.2010). Appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) requirements on the label will mitigate any unintentional exposures to applicators and/or handlers.

 Human Health Risk Characterization

EPA considered human exposure to humates in light of the standard for registration in FIFRA and the relevant safety factors in FFDCA. Since there were no toxicological effects or endpoints identified in mammalian studies, a determination has been made that no unreasonable adverse effects to the U.S. population in general, and to infants and children in particular, will result when humate products are used in accordance with EPA-approved labeling.

Environmental Assessment

   2. Ecological Hazards

Adequate nontarget toxicology data/information submitted and reviewed by the Agency satisfies the non-target toxicology data requirements for humates.

Avian Oral Acute Toxicity, Avian Dietary Toxicity, Fish Acute Toxicity, Freshwater and Marine, and Aquatic Invertebrate Acute Toxicity (OCSPP Guideline Nos. 850.2100, 850.2200,850.1075, and 850.1010)  (see also Tables 5 and 6 in Appendix A of this document).

Humates have historically been applied to soil with no reports of adverse effects to humans, other mammals, or the environment. Since humates are ubiquitous in soil and water, birds, fish, and other living organisms are already naturally exposed. The data and other information submitted to support the registration of humates as a PGR demonstrate that humates are practically nontoxic to birds on a dietary basis (LC50 > 5620 ppm), practically nontoxic to fish (LC50 > 100mg/L), and practically nontoxic to aquatic invertebrates (EC50 > 100mg/L).

Seedling Emergence and Vegetative Vigor (OCSPP Guidelines Nos. 850.4100 and 850.4150)

Humates are intended to be applied to growing crops, and are not absorbed by plants when applied to crops or to soil near growing crops. The major component, humic acids, enriches the soil and stimulates root growth and uptake of nutrients by the treated plants. They have historically been applied to crops with no reports of adverse effects to the environment. Humates provide benefits to soils and plants, and are considered to have a nontoxic mode of action.

Non-target Insect Testing (OCSPP Guideline 880.4350)

Humates are intended to be formulated into EP's and intended for application to growing crops. There have been no reports in the public literature of deleterious effects to honey bees from exposures to humic acid or other humic substances.

Environmental Fate and Ground Water Data

Environmental fate and groundwater data are not required at this time because the results of the nontarget organism toxicity assessment (Tier I data requirements) did not trigger these Tier II data requirements.

Ecological Exposure and Risk Characterization

Humates are naturally occurring and ubiquitous in both soil and aquatic environments. The proposed EP label rates would result in little net increase in the background amount of humates already present in the environment. Based on the review of this body of information in conjunction with the proposed labeling, the Agency believes that when used in accordance with the label directions, the use of humates should not result in adverse effects to birds, fish, aquatic invertebrates, and plant or nontarget insects. (Ref. 1)

Endangered Species Assessment

EPA has determined that no adverse effects are anticipated for nontarget species exposed to humates when used as a PGR; therefore, effects to federally-listed threatened and endangered species and their designated critical habitats are also not expected. Therefore, a "No Effect" determination is made for direct and indirect effects to federally-listed endangered and threatened species and their designated critical habitats for the proposed uses of humates as a PGR in agricultural settings.

Product Performance Data

Product performance (efficacy) data must be developed for all pesticides to ensure that the products will perform as intended and that unnecessary pesticide exposure to the environment will not occur as a result of the use of ineffective products. The Agency reserves the right to require, on a case-by- case basis, the submission of efficacy data for any pesticide product registered or proposed for registration, but applications to register pesticide products intended to control a pest of significant public health importance, as defined in FIFRA section 28(d) and section 2(nn), must include such data. For further guidance on the product performance data requirement, refer to Pesticide Registration (PR) Notices 96-7, 2002-1 and Explanation of Statutory Framework for Risk-Benefit Balancing for Public Health Pesticides (http://www.epa.gov/PR _Notices/pr1996-7.pdf, http://www.ea.gov/PR_Notices/pr2002-1.pdf, and http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/risk-benefit.htm).

Humates are not intended to be formulated into products to control public health pests, and product performance was not evaluated by the Agency.

RISK MANAGEMENT DECISION

A. Determination of Eligibility for Registration

Section 3(c)(5) of FIFRA provides for the registration of a pesticide provided that all the following determinations are made: (1) its composition is such as to warrant the claims for it; (2) its labeling and other materials required to be submitted comply with the requirements of FIFRA; (3) it will perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on the environment; and (4) when used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice, it will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.

To satisfy criterion (1), EPA believes the composition the proposed MP and EP warrants the claims made on the labels. Criterion (2) is satisfied, since the proposed product labels, as well as the data and information presented in this document, are in compliance with the requirements of FIFRA. Criterion (3) is satisfied in that humates are expected to function as PGRs without causing unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. Criterion (4) is satisfied in that no unreasonable adverse effects are expected when products containing humates are used in accordance with label directions and commonly recognized agricultural practices. Therefore, PM-4300 Organic Acids (EPA File Symbol No. 82940-G), and Phocon (EPA File Symbol No. 82940-E) meet the requirements for registration under FIFRA section 3(c)(5) for use in agricultural settings.

Regulatory Decision

The data submitted fulfill the requirements for the unconditional registration of humates for use as a plant growth regulator. For product-specific information, please refer to http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/pestlabels.

Environmental Justice

For additional information regarding environmental justice issues, please visit EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/compliance/environmentaljustice/index.html.

EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice -- the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income -- with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that no group of people, including racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic groups, should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of federal, state, local, and tribal environmental programs and policies. Meaningful involvement means that (1) potentially affected community residents have an appropriate opportunity to participate in decisions about an activity that will affect their environment and/or health; (2) the public's contribution can influence the regulatory agency's decision; (3) the concerns of all participants involved will be considered in the decision-making process; and (4) the decision-makers seek out and facilitate the involvement of those potentially affected. EPA has this goal for all communities and persons across the U.S.

At this time, EPA does not believe that use of humates pesticide products will cause harm or a disproportionate impact on at-risk communities; however, please comment if you are aware of any groups or segments of the population who, as a result their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical, unusually high exposure to humates compared to the general population.

For additional information regarding environmental justice issues, please visit EPA's web site at http://www.epa.gov/compliance/environmentaljustice/index.html.

ACTIONS REQUIRED BY REGISTRANTS

EPA evaluated all data submitted in connection with the registration of the new active ingredient, humates, and determined that these data are sufficient to satisfy current registration data requirements. At this time, no additional data must be submitted to EPA for these particular products. For new uses and/or changes to existing uses, EPA may require additional data.

Notwithstanding the information stated in the previous paragraph, it should be clearly understood that before releasing the registered products for shipment, the registrant will be required to provide appropriate final printed labeling to EPA. Further, certain specific data, briefly described below, are required to be reported to EPA, as a requirement for maintaining the federal registration for all pesticide products.

B. Reporting of Adverse Effects

Pursuant to FIFRA section 6(a)(2), reports of all incidents of adverse effects to the environment must be submitted to EPA.

REPORTING OF HYPERSENSITIVITY INCIDENTS

Under the provisions of 40 CFR part 158.2050(d), all incidents of hypersensitivity (including both suspected and confirmed incidents) must be reported to the Agency.
APPENDIX A.  Data Requirements (40 CFR Part 158, Subpart U)

Master Record Identification (MRID) numbers listed in the following tables are representative of supporting data/information for the original registration of the product containing this active ingredient. Subsequent to this registration, there may be additional MRIDs that support registration of other products containing this active ingredient.

TABLE 1. Product Identify, Composition, Analysis and Certified Limits for  PM-4300 Organic Acids (40 CFR 158.2030)
                        OPPTS Guideline Reference No.
                                     Study
                                   Results
                                   830.1550
                                      to
                                   830.1670
                               Product identity;
                            Manufacturing process;
             Discussion of formation of unintentional ingredients
              Acceptable; Confidential Business Information (CBI)
                                   830.1700
                              Analysis of samples
                                Acceptable; CBI
                                   830.1750
                            Certification of limits
                                Acceptable; CBI
                                   830.1800
                               Analytical method
                                Acceptable; CBI

TABLE 2.  Physical and Chemical Properties for PM-4300 Organic Acids (40 CFR 158.2030)
                                                    MRID Nos. 48711101- 48711104 and 49080300

                           Property/OCSPP Guideline

                             Description of Result

                                    Methods

Color/ 830.6302
                                     Black
                                Munsell N1 1/N
                         Visual inspection at 21.4°C

Physical State/ 830.6303
                                    Liquid
                         Visual inspection at 21.5°C

Odor/830.6304
                                Mild, alcoholic
                        Olfactory inspection at 21.5°C

Stability/830.6313
Stable for 14 days at ambient and elevated (54 +- 2°C) temperature in HDPE containers. Stability to metals and metal ions is not applicable, since the product will not be stored or packaged in metal containers.
                                OCSPP 830.1637

Oxidation/Reduction: Chemical Incompatibility/830.6314
Not applicable, the product does not contain oxidizing ingredients.
                                      N/A

Flammability/830.6315
Not applicable, the product is 70% water and contains no flammable ingredients. >100°C[b]
                                      N/A

Explodability/830.6316
Not applicable, the product is 70% water and contains no explosive ingredients.
                                      N/A

Storage Stability/830.6317
Study is ongoing. Results will be submitted upon completion.
                                      N/A

Miscibility/830.6319
Not applicable, the product is not an emulsifiable liquid to be diluted with petroleum solvents.
                                      N/A

Corrosion Characteristics/830.6320
Study is ongoing. Results will be submitted upon completion.
                                      N/A

Dielectric Breakdown Voltage/830.6321
Not applicable, the product is not for use around electrical equipment.
                                      N/A

pH/830.7000
10.67 +- 0.005(1% solution  in CO2-free water at 21.1°C)
                                   pH meter
                              Maxxam SOP 91-M-014
Viscosity/830.7100
                     3.01 +- 0.00 mm[2]/s (cSt) at 19.8°C
                     2.53 +- 0.00 mm[2]/s (cSt) at 39.9°C
                             Ubbelohde viscometer
Melting Range/830.7200
                   Not applicable; the product is a liquid.
                                      N/A

Boiling Range/830.7220
                                102.6 +- 0.1°C
                             Ebulliometric method

Density/Relative Density/Bulk Density/830.7300
                               1.14 +- 0.00 g/mL
                                   OECD 109

Dissociation Constant in Water/830.7370
                   Not applicable, the product is 70% water.
                                      N/A

Partition Coefficient/830.7550
Not applicable, the product is 70% water and the components are not expected to partition into octanol.
                                      N/A

Water Solubility/830.7840
                   Not applicable, the product is 70% water.
                                      N/A

Vapor Pressure/830.7950
 Not applicable, the product is 70% water and contains non-volatile solutes.
                                      N/A

   TABLE 3.  Acute Toxicity Data for PM-4300 Organic Acids (40 CFR 158.2050)

                          Study Type/OCSPP Guideline

                               LD50/LC50/Results

                               Toxicity Category
                                     MRID

Acute Oral Toxicity/870.1100
                                >5,000 mg/kg

                                      IV
                                   48711105

Acute Dermal Toxicity/870.1200
                               > 5,000 mg/kg

                                      IV
                                   48711106

Acute Inhalation Toxicity870.1300
                                 >2.05 mg/L
                                      IV
                                   48711107

Acute Eye Irritation/870.2400

Minimal effects clearing in less than 24 hours
                                      IV
                                   48711108

Acute Dermal Irritation/870.2500
Slight irritation resolved within 72 hours

                                      IV
                                   48711109

Skin Sensitization/870.2600
                               Not a sensitizer
                                      N/A
                                   48711110

Bacterial Reverse Mutation Testing/870.5100
PM-4300 did not cause gene mutations by base pair changes or frame shifts; no evidence of cytotoxicity at highest does tested; non-mutagenic/Acceptable
                                      N/A
                                   49080301

In vitro Mammalian Cell Assay/870.5300/5375
                             Rationale/Acceptable
                                      N/A
                                   48711115

90-Day Oral Toxicity/870.3100
                             Rationale/Acceptable
                                      N/A
                                   48711115

90-Day Dermal Toxicity/870.3250
                             Rationale/Acceptable
                                      N/A
                                   48711115

90-Day Inhalation Toxicity/870.3465
                             Rationale/Acceptable
                                      N/A
                                   48711115

Prenatal Development/870.3700
                             Rationale/Acceptable
                                      N/A
                                   49080301

The request to bridge acute toxicity data produced for PM-4300 (TGAI/MP) to Phocon was acceptable.

          TABLE 4.  Acute Toxicity Data for Phocon (40 CFR 158.2050)
                              Acute Oral Toxicity
                             Rationale-acceptable
                             Acute Dermal Toxicity
                             Rationale-acceptable
                            Primary Eye Irritation
                            Minimal irritation: IV
                           Primary Dermal Irritation
                             Rationale-acceptable
                             Dermal Sensitization
                             Rationale-acceptable
                           Acute Inhalation Toxicity
                             Rationale-acceptable

TABLE 5. Ecological Toxicity Data Requirements for PM-4300 Organic Acids (40 CFR 158.2060)
                          Study Type/OCSPP Guideline
                                    Results
                                     MRID

Avian Acute Oral/850.2100
                             Rationale/Acceptable
                                   49080302

Avian Dietary/850.2200

               96 hour LC50 > 5620ppm;  Practically Nontoxic
                                   48711112

Freshwater Fish LC50/850.1075

                         96 hour LC50 > 100 mg/L;
                             Practically Nontoxic
                                   48711113

Freshwater Invertebrate/850.1010

                48 hour EC50 > 100 mg/L Practically Nontoxic
                                   48711114

Non-target Plants/850.4100/4150
                             Rationale/Acceptable
                                   48711116

Non-target Insects/850.3020

                             Rationale/Acceptable
                                   48711116

  TABLE 6. Ecological Toxicity Data Requirements for Phocon (40 CFR 158.2060)
                          Study Type/OCSPP Guideline
                           Results/Toxicity Category
                                     MRID
                               Study Conclusion

Avian Acute Oral/850.2100
                  Information submitted to justify rationale

                                  Acceptable
                                   49080203

Avian Dietary/850.2200
                  Information submitted to justify rationale

                                  Acceptable

                                   48711116

Freshwater Fish LC50/ 850.1075
                  Information submitted to justify rationale

                                  Acceptable

                                   48711116

Freshwater Invertebrate/ 850.1010
                  Information submitted to justify rationale

                                  Acceptable

                                   48711116

Non-target Plants/850.4100
Pre-emergence application at 24 qt/A did not reduce by 25% or greater any of the 21-day growth endpoints for species tested
                                  Acceptable

                                   48710906

Non-target Plants/850.4150
Foliar application at 24 qt/A did not reduce by 25% or greater any of the growth endpoints for species tested at 21 days post application
                                  Acceptable

                                   48710907

Non-target Insects/850.3020

48-hr contact LD50 >100ug/bee; relatively nontoxic to honey bee

                                  Acceptable
                            48710908  and 49080203

APPENDIX B. References

1. U.S. EPA, 2012. Memorandum from Sadaf Shaukat to Menyon Adams. Science Review in support of the Registration of PM-4300 Organic Acids Containing 18.5% Organic Acids derived from Leonardite as its Active Ingredient. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs. December 18, 2012.

2. U.S. EPA, 2013. Memorandum from Sadaf Shaukat to Menyon Adams. Science Review in support of the Registration of PM-4300 Organic Acids Containing 18.5% Organic Acids derived from Leonardite as its Active Ingredient. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs. September 6, 2013.

3. U.S. EPA, 2012. Memorandum from Sadaf Shaukat to Menyon Adams. Science Review in support of the Registration of Phocon Containing 12.0% Organic Acids derived from Leonardite as its Active Ingredient. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs. December 22, 2012.

4. U.S. EPA, 2013. Memorandum from Sadaf Shaukat to Menyon Adams. Science Review in support of the Registration of Phocon Containing 12.0% Organic Acids derived from Leonardite as its Active Ingredient. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs. January 23, 2013.

5. U.S. EPA, 2013. Memorandum from Sadaf Shaukat to Menyon Adams. Science Review in support of the Registration of Phocon Containing 12.0% Organic Acids derived from Leonardite as its Active Ingredient. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs. September 6, 2013.

6. OECD. 2004. SIDS Initial Assessment Report. Gluconic Acid and its Derivatives. Paris, France.

7. Pena-Mendez, E. M., Havel, J., Patocka, J. 2005. J. Applied Biomedicine. 3: 13-24.

8. Thurman EM. 1985. Organic Geochemistry of Natural Waters. Kluwer, Boston, MA, USA.

9. (40 CFR §180.950 (e)).

10. ASA Analytics. 2010. Natural organic matter (NOM) in water.
   http://www.anaanalytics.com/natural-organic-matter.php

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

   a.i.	active ingredient
   BPPD	Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division
   BRAD	Biopesticide Registration Action Document
   bw	body weight
   CBI	Confidential Business Information
   CFR	Code of Federal Regulations
   cm[3] 	cubic centimeter
   CSF	Confidential Statement of Formula
   °C 	degrees Celsius
   EC50	median effective concentration. A statistically derived single concentration in environmental medium that can be expected to cause an effect in 50% of the test animals when administrated by the route indicated (inhalation). It is expressed as a concentration in air or water (e.g. mg/L).
   EDSP	Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program
   EDSTAC	Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory Committee
   EP	end-use product
   EPA	Environmental Protection Agency (the "Agency")
   FDA	Food and Drug Administration
   FFDCA	Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
   FIFRA	Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
   FQPA 	Food Quality Protection Act
   FR	Federal Register
   g 	gram
   ha	hectare
   kg	kilogram
   Kow	octanol-water partition coefficient
   L                   liter
   LC50	median lethal concentration. A statistically derived single concentration in air or water that can be expected to cause death in 50% of the test animals when administrated by the route indicated (inhalation and environment). It is expressed as a concentration in air or water (e.g. mg/L).
   LD50	median lethal dose. A statistically derived single dose that can be expected
   	to cause death in 50% of the test animals when administered by the route
   	indicated (oral and dermal). It is expressed as a weight of
   	substance per unit weight of animal (e.g., mg/kg).
   MRID No.	Master Record Identification Number
   mg	milligram
   mPa	millipascal
   mL	milliliter
   MP	manufacturing-use product
   N/A	not applicable
   NE	"No Effect"
   NIOSH 	National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
   nm	nanometer
   NOEL	no-observed-effect-level
   NOF	notice of filing
   NOR	notice of receipt
   OPP	Office of Pesticide Programs
   OCSPP 	Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
   pa	pascal
   PPE 	personal protective equipment
   PR Notice	Pesticide Registration Notice
       TGAI 	   technical grade of the active ingredient
       ug 		   microgram
       USDA 	   United States Department of Agriculture
       UV 	   ultra-violet


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 2243]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00497]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Form 10-D, SEC File No. 270-544, OMB Control No. 3235-0604.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on this collection
of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Form 10-D is a periodic report used by asset-backed issuers to file
distribution and pool performance information pursuant to Rule 13a-17
(17 CFR 240.13a-17) or Rule 15d-17 (17 CFR 240.15d-17) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'')(15 U.S.C.78a et
seq.). The form is required to be filed within 15 days after each
required distribution date on the asset-backed securities, as specified
in the governing documents for such securities. The information
provided by Form 10-D is mandatory and all information is made
available to the public upon request. Form 10-D takes approximately 30
hours per response to prepare and is filed by approximately 2,169
respondents. Each respondent files an estimated 4.343 Form 10-Ds per
year for a total of 9,420 responses. We estimate that 75% of the 30
hours per response (22.5 hours) is prepared by the company for a total
annual reporting burden of 211,950 hours (22.5 hours per response x
9,420 responses).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    Please direct your written comment to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email
to: [email protected].

    Dated: January 9, 2018.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-00497 Filed 1-12-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 66 (Monday, April 7, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19012-19014]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07565]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0681; FRL-9909-07-Region-9]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Hawaii;
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air
Quality Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving elements of
a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of
Hawaii on February 13, 2013, pursuant to the requirements of the Clean
Air Act (CAA or the Act) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS). Section 110(a) of the CAA requires that each
state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on May 7, 2014.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action, identified by
Docket ID Number EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0681. The index to the docket for
this action is available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov
and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,
California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly
available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours
with the contact listed directly below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dawn Richmond, Air Planning Office
(AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 972-
3207<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we,''
``us,'' and ``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On October 23, 2013 (78 FR 63145), EPA proposed to approve elements
of the Hawaii State Implementation Plan Revision for 2008 Lead National
Ambient Air Quality Standard, Clean Air Act Sec.  110(a)(1) and (2)
(February 13, 2013) (``Hawaii Pb Infrastructure SIP''), submitted by
the State of Hawaii on

February 13, 2013. In our October 23, 2013 proposed rule, we also
proposed to approve Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) section 11-60.1-
90 (``Permit content'') into the Hawaii SIP.
    Section 110(a) of the CAA requires that each state adopt and submit
a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each
NAAQS promulgated by EPA. The rationale supporting EPA's action,
including the scope of infrastructure SIPs in general, is explained in
that Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) and the associated technical
support document (TSD) and will not be restated here. The TSD is
available online at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID number EPA-
R09-OAR- 2013-0681. No public comments were received on the NPR.

II. Final Action

    EPA is approving HAR 11-60.1-90 (``Permit content'') and elements
of the Hawaii Pb Infrastructure SIP. EPA is approving the Hawaii Pb
Infrastructure SIP with respect to the following requirements:
     Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control
measures.
     Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data
system.
     Section 110(a)(2)(C) (in part): Program for enforcement of
control measures and regulation of new stationary sources (minor New
Source Review (NSR) program only).
     Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I): Interstate transport
(significant contribution and interference with maintenance).
     Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (in part): Interstate
transport (visibility protection only).
     Section 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and authority,
conflict of interest, and oversight of local governments and regional
agencies.
     Section 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring and
reporting.
     Section 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency episodes.
     Section 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions.
     Section 110(a)(2)(J) (in part): Public notification.
     Section 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling and submission
of modeling data.
     Section 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
     Section 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by
affected local entities.
    As explained in our October 23, 2013 proposed rule and related TSD,
we previously found the Hawaii Pb Infrastructure SIP incomplete with
respect to the PSD-related requirements of section 110(a)(2). Under CAA
section 110(k)(1)(C), where EPA determines that a portion of a SIP
submission is incomplete, ``the State shall be treated as not having
made the submission (or, in the Administrator's discretion, part
thereof).'' Accordingly, we are not acting on the Hawaii Pb
Infrastructure SIP with respect to the PSD-related requirements in
Sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), and (J).

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations (42 U.S.C. 7410(k), 40 CFR 52.02(a)). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves certain state laws as meeting federal
requirements; this action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); is not an
economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety
risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and,
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 6, 2014. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 14, 2014.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart M--Hawaii

0
2. In Sec.  52.620,

0
a. The table in paragraph (c) is amended by adding an entry for ``11-
60.1-90'' after the entry for ``11-60.1-84''; and
0
b. The table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an entry for
``Hawaii State Implementation Plan Revision for 2008 Lead National
Ambient Air Quality Standard, Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(1) & (2),
excluding attachment 6, and appendices A, B, C, and F'' after the entry
for ``State Implementation Plan Revision, Clean Air Act Section
110(a)(2), 1997 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard and 1997
and 2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards''.
    The amendments read as follows:

Sec.  52.620  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                    EPA-Approved State of Hawaii Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Effective
          State citation               Title/subject         date       EPA-approval date        Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
11-60.1-90.......................  Permit content......      9/15/01  [Insert Federal       Newly added to the
                                                                       Register page         Hawaii SIP.
                                                                       number where the      Submitted on
                                                                       document begins and   February 13, 2013.
                                                                       4/7/2014].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                   EPA-Approved Hawaii Nonregulatory Provisions and QUASI-Regulatory Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Applicable          State
     Name of SIP provision           geographic or       submittal    EPA-approval date        Explanation
                                   nonattainment area       date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Hawaii State Implementation      Statewide............      2/13/13  [Insert Federal     Approved SIP revision
 Plan Revision for 2008 Lead                                          Register page       excludes attachment 6
 National Ambient Air Quality                                         number where the    (``Summary of Public
 Standard, Clean Air Act                                              document begins     Participation
 Section 110(a)(1) & (2),                                             and 4/7/2014].      Proceedings''),
 excluding attachment 6, and                                                              appendix A (``Hawaii
 appendices A, B, C, F.                                                                   Revised Statutes
                                                                                Chapter 342A, Air
                                                                                Pollution Control''),
                                                                                appendix B (``Hawaii
                                                                                Revised Statutes
                                                                                Chapter 84, Standards
                                                                                of Conduct''),
                                                                                appendix C (``Hawaii
                                                                                Administrative Rules
                                                                                Chapter 11-60.1, Air
                                                                                Pollution Control''),
                                                                                and appendix F
                                                                                (``Approval and Public
                                                                                Participation
                                                                                Proceedings from the
                                                                                Most Recent Amendment
                                                                                and Public Comment for
                                                                                HAR 11-60.1-90:
                                                                                September 15, 2001
                                                                                version''). The
                                                                                statutory provisions
                                                                                in appendices A and B
                                                                                were previously
                                                                                approved and are
                                                                                listed separately in
                                                                                the table under
                                                                                paragraph (e). EPA-
                                                                                approved regulations
                                                                                contained in appendix
                                                                                C are listed
                                                                                separately in the
                                                                                table under paragraph
                                                                                (c). This action
                                                                                addresses the
                                                                                following CAA elements
                                                                                or portions thereof
                                                                                for the 2008 Pb NAAQS:
                                                                                110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                                (C), (D)(i)(I), (E),
                                                                                (F), (G), (H), (J),
                                                                                (K), (L), and (M).

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2014-07565 Filed 4-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 14, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 221)]
[Notices]
[Page 67534]
[DOCID:fr14no08-102]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1795-DR]

Indiana; Amendment No. 6 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Indiana (FEMA-1795-DR), dated September 23, 2008, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: November 5, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Indiana is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of September 23, 2008.

    Franklin, Gibson, Ohio, Orange, Ripley, Vanderburgh, and Warrick
Counties for Individual Assistance (already designated for Public
Assistance).
    Jasper, Posey, and St. Joseph Counties for Individual
Assistance.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
 [FR Doc. E8-27036 Filed 11-13-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P