[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 60 (Wednesday, March 29, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18532-18533]
[FR Doc No: 2023-06439]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP23-92-000]

ANR Pipeline Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization and Establishing Intervention and Protest Deadline

    Take notice that on March 13, 2023, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR), 700
Louisiana Street, Suite 1300, Houston, Texas 77002, filed in the above
referenced docket, a prior notice pursuant to Sections 157.205 and
157.216 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations under
the Natural Gas Act and the blanket certificate issued by the
Commission in Docket No. CP82-480-000,\1\ seeking authorization to
abandon two injection/withdrawal wells and appurtenances located at the
Reed City Storage Field in Osceola County, Michigan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Michigan Wisconsin Pipe Line Company, 20 FERC ] 62,595
(1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed abandonment is required by Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration's Storage Final Rule, which requires
storage operators to assess well integrity risk and to implement
appropriate prevention and mitigation measures to reduce risk. The two
proposed wells provide little value and have historically performed
poorly. The estimated cost of the project is $430,000, all as more
fully set forth in the request which is on file with the Commission and
open to public inspection.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (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. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this application should be directed to
David A. Alonzo, Manager, Project Authorizations, Bison Pipeline LLC,
700 Louisiana Street, Suite 1300, Houston, Texas 77002, by phone at
(832) 320-5477; or by email to [email protected].

Public Participation

    There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review
of this project: you can file a protest to the project, you can file a
motion to intervene in the proceeding, and you can file comments on the
project. There is no fee or cost for filing protests, motions to
intervene, or comments. The deadline for filing protests, motions to
intervene, and comments is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 22, 2023. How
to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained
below.

Protests

    Pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under
the NGA,\2\ any person \3\ or the Commission's staff may file a protest
to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed or if a
protest is filed and then withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed
time for filing a protest, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be
authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a
protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time
allowed for filing a protest, the instant request for authorization
will be considered by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 18 CFR 157.205.
    \3\ Persons include individuals, organizations, businesses,
municipalities, and other entities. 18 CFR 385.102(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Protests must comply with the requirements specified in section
157.205(e) of the Commission's regulations,\4\ and must be submitted by
the protest deadline, which is May 22, 2023. A protest may also serve
as a motion to intervene so long as the protestor states it also seeks
to be an intervenor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 18 CFR 157.205(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interventions

    Any person has the option to file a motion to intervene in this
proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to request rehearing of
Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to subsequently
challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
    To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the
Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure \5\ and the regulations under the NGA \6\ by the
intervention deadline for the project, which is May 22, 2023. As
described further in Rule 214, your motion to intervene must state, to
the extent known, your position regarding the proceeding, as well as
your interest in the proceeding. For an individual, this could include
your status as a landowner, ratepayer, resident of an impacted
community, or recreationist. You do not need to have property directly
impacted by the project in order to intervene. For more information
about motions to intervene, refer to the FERC website at https://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 18 CFR 385.214.
    \6\ 18 CFR 157.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All timely, unopposed motions to intervene are automatically
granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1). Motions to intervene that are
filed after the intervention deadline are untimely and may be denied.
Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for being late
and must explain why the time limitation should be waived and provide
justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d) of the
Commission's Rules and Regulations. A person obtaining party status
will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the
Commission and will receive copies (paper or electronic) of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties.

Comments

    Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. The
Commission considers all comments received about the project in
determining the appropriate action to be taken. To

ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please
submit your comments on or before May 22, 2023. The filing of a comment
alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To
become a party, you must intervene in the proceeding.

How To File Protests, Interventions, and Comments

    There are two ways to submit protests, motions to intervene, and
comments. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number
CP23-92-000 in your submission.
    (1) You may file your protest, motion to intervene, and comments by
using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the
Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and
Filings. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you are
making; first select ``General'' and then select ``Protest'',
``Intervention'', or ``Comment on a Filing.'' The Commission's eFiling
staff are available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected]
    (2) You can file a paper copy of your submission. Your submission
must reference the Project docket number CP23-92-000.
    To mail via USPS, use the following address: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426.
    To mail via any other courier, use the following address: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant
either by mail or email (with a link to the document) at: David A.
Alonzo, Manager, Project Authorizations, Bison Pipeline LLC, 700
Louisiana Street, Suite 1300, Houston, Texas 77002, by phone at (832)
320-477; or by email to [email protected]. Any subsequent
submissions by an intervenor must be served on the applicant and all
other parties to the proceeding. Contact information for parties can be
downloaded from the service list at the eService link on FERC Online.

Tracking the Proceeding

    Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project
will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at
(866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link as described above. The eLibrary link also provides
access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the Commission,
such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. For more information and to register, go to
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: March 22, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-06439 Filed 3-28-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 23 (Monday, February 4, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7703-7705]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02377]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0728; FRL 9775-8]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, South
Coast Air Quality Management District, Proposed Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD) portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). Under authority of the Clean Air Act as
amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act), we are proposing to approve local
rules that address volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from
municipal solid waste landfills and livestock waste. We are taking
comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by March 6, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number, EPA-R09-OAR-
2012-0728, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at 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 in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: La Weeda Ward, Air Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule and rule revision?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action.
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rules.
    D. Public Comment and Final Action.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules we are approving with the dates that they
were adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the California
Air Resources Board (CARB).

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Local agency               Rule          Rule title             Adopted        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCAQMD...............................           1150.1  Control of Gaseous              04/01/11        09/27/11
                                                         Emissions from
                                                         Municipal Solid Waste
                                                         Landfills.
SCAQMD...............................           1127    Emissions Reductions            08/06/04        10/05/06
                                                         from Livestock Waste.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 24, 2011 and October 24, 2006, EPA determined that the
submittals for SCAQMD Rules 1150.1 and 1127, respectively, met the
completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met
before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    We approved an earlier version of Rule 1150.1 into the SIP on July
1, 2002 (67 FR 44062). SCAQMD adopted revisions to the SIP-approved
version on April 1, 2011 and CARB submitted them to us on September 27,
2011.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule and rule revision?

    VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human
health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States
to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. EPA's technical
support documents (TSD) have more information about these rules.
    SCAQMD Rule 1150.1, ``Control of Gaseous Emissions from Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills,'' is an amended rule that regulates landfill gas
emissions. The submitted rule applies to both active and inactive
municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills and defines an active MSW
landfill as one that has received solid waste on or after November 8,
1987.
    The two previous versions of Rule 1150.1 (April 10, 1998 and March
10, 2000) focused on controlling VOC emissions, as well as toxic air
contaminant (TAC) emissions. SCAQMD's intent was to reduce the
contribution of these pollutants to atmospheric ozone, avoid public
nuisance complaints from odorous compounds, and prevent the detriment
to public health caused by such emissions.

    Increased focus on controlling greenhouse gases (GHGs) led to the
enactment by the California Legislature of Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32),
the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. SCAQMD's primary purpose for
revising Rule 1150.1 is to incorporate provisions to achieve
equivalency with an AB 32 early action measure, the Landfill Methane
Regulation (California Code of Regulations, Title 17, Sections 95460 to
95476). We note that the revisions to Rule 1150.1 also enhance the
regulation of VOCs by improving the rule's overall enforceability
through clarifications of standards for already-required controls and
the streamlining of duplicative recordkeeping and reporting
requirements.
    SCAQMD Rule 1127 was adopted on August 6, 2004. The purpose of the
rule is to reduce emissions of ammonia, VOC and particulate matter
under 10 microns (PM10) from dairies. Applicable operations
include dairies, heifer, and calf farms within the SCAQMD's
jurisdiction. It also applies to manure processing operations, such as
composting operations and anaerobic digesters.
    Rule 1127 was designed to implement the 2003 Air Quality Management
Plan (AQMP) control measure, WST-01, and establish Best Available
Control Measure (BACM) requirements for dairies pursuant to Senate Bill
(SB) 700 (Florez) signed by California governor Gray Davis on September
22, 2003. SB 700 required applicable non-attainment areas to remove
exemptions for certain agricultural operations from permitting
requirements. EPA is evaluating the rule provisions for conformance
with reasonable available control technology (RACT) requirements
pursuant to Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 182(b)(2).

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the
Act), must require RACT for each category of sources covered by a
Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document as well as each major
source in nonattainment areas (see sections 182(a)(2) and (b)(2)), and
must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193).
SCAQMD regulates an ozone nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so
Rules 1150.1 and 1127 must fulfill RACT.
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate
enforceability and RACT requirements consistently include the
following:
    1. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook).
    2. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and
guidance regarding enforceability, RACT and SIP relaxations. The
revisions to Rule 1150.1 strengthen the rule by improving
enforceability and streamlining duplicative requirements. Rule 1127
meets the RACT criteria by implementing control technology that is
reasonably available, considering technological and economic
feasibility. The TSDs have more information on our evaluation.

C. EPA recommendations to further improve the rules.

    EPA has no recommendation to further improve Rule 1150.1. We do
have recommendations to improve Rule 1127 which are detailed in the
TSD.

D. Public Comment and Final Action.

    Because EPA believes the submitted rules fulfill all relevant
requirements, we are proposing to fully approve them as described in
section 110(k)(3) of the Act. We will accept comments from the public
on this proposal for the next 30 days. Unless we receive convincing new
information during the comment period, we intend to publish a final
approval action that will incorporate these rules into the federally
enforceable SIP.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, 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 Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and 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 (Public Law 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 Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, 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. 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 action 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 April 5, 2013.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this
final rule does not affect the finality of this action 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. Parties with objections to this
direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the
parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the
Proposed Rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an
immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so
that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in
the proposed rulemaking. 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, Intergovernmental
relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

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

    Dated: January 23, 2013.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2013-02377 Filed 2-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 104 (Thursday, June 1, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25283-25284]
[FR Doc No: 2017-11271]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP17-441-000]

Northwest Pipeline LLC; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on May 11, 2017, Northwest Pipeline, LLC
(Northwest), 295 Chipeta Way, Salt Lake City, Utah 84108, has filed an
application pursuant to section 7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act
(NGA) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations, requesting abandonment approvals, and a certificate of
public convenience seeking authorization to construct and operate its
North Seattle Lateral Upgrade Project (Project) located in Snohomish
County, Washington, all as more fully described in the application
which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The
filing may also be 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, contact FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-
free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Specifically, the Project consists of: (1) Abandoning by removal
the existing 8-inch-diameter pipeline between mileposts (MP) 2.2 and
8.8 on Northwest's North Seattle Delivery Lateral line and installing
new 20 inch diameter pipeline from MP 1.9 to 8.8; (2) rebuild the
existing North Seattle/Everett meter station; and (3) installing
miscellaneous appurtenances; all located in Snohomish County,
Washington.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Xan
Kotter, Northwest Pipeline LLC, P.O. Box 58900, Salt Lake City, UT
84158-0900, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 7 copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission
and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the

Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on
the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the
environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated
with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental
commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on
all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive
copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the
Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by
the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the
Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 14, 2017.

    Dated: May 25, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-11271 Filed 5-31-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 8, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 45)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 11526-11533]
[DOCID:fr08mr06-7]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0311; FRL-7764-1]

Flumiclorac Pentyl; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
flumiclorac pentyl in or on undelinted cottonseed and cotton gin
byproducts. Valent U.S.A. Corporation requested this tolerance under
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the
Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA).

DATES: This regulation is effective March 8, 2006. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before May 8, 2006.

ADDRESSES:  To submit a written objection or hearing request follow the
detailed instructions as provided in Unit VI. of theSUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION. EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0311. All documents in the
docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov web site. (EDOCKET, EPA's

electronic public docket and comment system was replaced on November
25, 2005, by an enhanced Federal-wide electronic docket management and
comment system located at http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the on-

line instructions.) Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in EDOCKET or in hard copy at the
Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119,
Crystal Mall 2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA. This docket
facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305-
5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Joanne I. Miller, Registration
Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS 111), e.g., agricultural workers;
greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; farmers.
     Animal production (NAICS 112), e.g., cattle ranchers and
farmers, dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers.
     Food manufacturing (NAICS 311), e.g., agricultural
workers; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers;
ranchers; pesticide applicators.
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 32532), e.g., agricultural
workers; commercial applicators; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and
floriculture workers; residential users.
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed underFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document and Other
Related Information?

    In addition to using EDOCKET (http://www.epa.gov/edocket/),you may

access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA
Internet under the ``Federal Register'' listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
 A frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180

is available on E-CFR Beta Site Two at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr/.

To access the OPPTS Harmonized Guidelines referenced in this document,
go directly to the guidelines athttp://www.epa. gpo/opptsfrs/home/

guidelin. htm/.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of November 30, 2005 (70 FR 71844) (FRL-
7747-3), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
3F6767) by Valent U.S.A. Corporation, 1600 Riviera Ave., Suite 200,
Walnut Creek, CA 94596-8025. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.477
be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide,
flumiclorac pentyl, [2-chloro-4-fluoro-5-(1,3,4,5,6,7-hexahydro-1,3-
dioxo-2H-isoindol-2-yl)phenoxy]-acetate, in or on cotton undelinted
seed at 0.1 parts per million (ppm) and cotton gin by products at 2.0
ppm. That notice included a summary of the petition prepared by Valent
U.S.A. Corporation, the registrant. The Notice of Availability of the
Flumiclorac Pentyl Tolerance Reassessment (TRED) was published in the
Federal Register on October 19, 2005 (70 FR 60824) (FRL-7740-4). The
flumiclorac pentyl TRED stated that the residues should be expressed as
flumiclorac pentyl, per se, and that the tolerances for cotton
undelinted seed be increased to 0.2 ppm, and that cotton gin by
products be increased to 3.0 ppm. One comment was received on the
notice of filing. EPA's response to this comment is discussed in Unit
IV.C.
    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. For further discussion of the
regulatory requirements of section 408 of the FFDCA and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www. epa.gov/

fedrgstr/ EPA-PEST/1997/ November/ Day-26/p30948.htm.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to
make a determination on aggregate exposure, consistent with section
408(b)(2) of FFDCA, for a tolerance for residues of flumiclorac pentyl
on cotton undelinted seed at 0.2 ppm and cotton gin by products at 3.0
ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with
establishing the tolerance follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature
of the toxic effects caused by flumiclorac pentyl are discussed in
Table 1 of this unit as well as the no observed adverse effect level
(NOAEL) and the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) from the
toxicity studies reviewed.

            Table 1.--Subchronic, Chronic, and Other Toxicity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Guideline No.               Study Type      Results Assessment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
870.3100                          90-Day oral         NOAEL = 1,359
                                   toxicity--rodents   milligrams/
                                   (rat)               kilogram/day (mg/
                                                       kg/day)males (M)
                                                       and 1,574 mg/kg/
                                                       day females (F) -
                                                       Highest Dose
                                                       Tested(HTD)
                                                      LOAEL was not
                                                       established
------------------------------------------------------------------------
870.3150                          90-Day oral         NOAEL = 100 mg/kg/
                                   toxicity--          day
                                   nonrodents (dog)   LOAEL = 1,000 mg/
                                                       kg/day based on
                                                       increased
                                                       clotting time in
                                                       females
------------------------------------------------------------------------
870.3200                          21/28-Day dermal    NOAEL = 1,000 mg/
                                   toxicity (rat)      kg/day (limit
                                                       dose)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
870.3700                          Prenatal            Maternal NOAEL =
                                   developmental--     1,500 mg/kg/day -
                                   rodents (rat)       HDT
                                                      Maternal LOAEL was
                                                       not established
                                                      Developmental
                                                       NOAEL = 1,500 mg/
                                                       kg/day - HDT
                                                      Developmental
                                                       LOAEL was not
                                                       established
------------------------------------------------------------------------
870.3800                          Reproduction and    Parental/Systemic
                                   fertility effects   NOAEL = 16/18mg/
                                   (rat)               kg/day (M/F)
                                                      Parental/Systemic
                                                       LOAEL = 781/925mg/
                                                       kg/day (M/F)
                                                       based on
                                                       increased kidney
                                                       weight in males
                                                       andfemales and
                                                       nephropathy in
                                                       males
                                                      Reproductive NOAEL
                                                       = 1610/1869 mg/kg/
                                                       day (M/F) - HDT
                                                      Reproductive LOAEL
                                                       was not
                                                       established
                                                      Offspring NOAEL =
                                                       781/925mg/kg/day
                                                       (M/F)
                                                      Offspring LOAEL =
                                                       1610/1869mg/kg/
                                                       day (M/F) based
                                                       on decreasedbody
                                                       weight/body
                                                       weight in F2 pups
------------------------------------------------------------------------
870.4100                          Chronic toxicity--  NOAEL = 100 mg/kg/
                                   dogs                day
                                                      LOAEL = 1,000 mg/
                                                       kg/day based on
                                                       decreased body
                                                       weight gain in
                                                       male; increased
                                                       clotting time,
                                                       increased
                                                       globulin levels,
                                                       and
                                                       increasedalpha-2
                                                       fraction of the
                                                       serum protein
                                                       electrophoresis
                                                       in females
------------------------------------------------------------------------
870.4200                          Chronic toxicity/   NOAEL = 744.9/
                                   Carcinogenicity--   919.4 mg/kg/day(M/
                                   rats                F) - HDT
                                                      LOAEL was not
                                                       established
                                                      No evidence of
                                                       carcinogenicity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
870.4300                          Carcinogenicity--   NOAEL = 731.4/
                                   mice                850.2 mg/kg/day(M/
                                                       F) - HDT
                                                      LOAEL was not
                                                       established
                                                      No evidence of
                                                       carcinogenicity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
870.5100                          Gene mutation       Negative up to
                                                       5,000 [mu]g/plate
                                                       withand without
                                                       metabolic
                                                       activation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
870.5375                          Cytogenetics        Negative for
                                                       chromosome
                                                       aberrationup to
                                                       400 [mu]g/mL with
                                                       metabolic
                                                       activation;
                                                       weak,positive
                                                       response without
                                                       activation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
870.5395                          Micronucleus -      Negative at
                                   mouse               concentration up
                                                       to300 [mu]g/mL in
                                                       cultured rat
                                                       hepatocytes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
870.5550                          Unscheduled DNA     Negative at doses
                                   Synthesis           up to 5,000 mg/kg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
870.7485                          Metabolism and      Rapid absorption
                                   pharmacokinetics    and excretion;
                                                       majormetabolic
                                                       route is
                                                       deesterification
                                                       to a
                                                       phenoxyaceticacid
                                                       derivative
                                                       followed by
                                                       cleavageof the
                                                       imide moiety or
                                                       hydroxylationand/
                                                       or sulfonation
                                                       reactions
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Toxicological Endpoints

    For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the dose at which no adverse effects are observed
(the NOAEL) from the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use
in risk assessment is used to estimate the toxicological level of
concern (LOC). However, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of
concern are identified (the LOAEL) is sometimes used for risk
assessment if no NOAEL was achieved in the toxicology study selected.
An uncertainty factor (UF) is applied to reflect uncertainties inherent
in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and in the
variations in sensitivity among members of the human population as well
as other unknowns.
    The linear default risk methodology (Q*) is the primary method
currently used by the Agency to quantify non-threshold hazards such as
cancer. The Q* approach assumes that any amount of exposure will lead
to some degree of cancer risk, estimates risk in terms of the
probability of occurrence of additional cancer cases (e.g., risk). An
example of how such a probability risk is expressed would be to
describe the risk as one in one hundred thousand (1 X 10-5),
one in a million (1 X 10-6), or one in ten million (1 X
10-7). Under certain specific circumstances, MOE
calculations will be used for the carcinogenic risk assessment. In this
non-linear approach, a ``point of departure'' is identified below which
carcinogenic effects are not expected. The point of departure is
typically a NOAEL based on an endpoint related to cancer effects though
it may be a different value derived from the dose response curve. To
estimate risk, a ratio of the point of departure to exposure
(MOEcancer = point of departure/exposures) is calculated.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for flumiclorac pentyl
used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 2 of this unit:

  Table 2.--Summary of Toxicological Dose and Endpoints for flumiclorac pentyl for Use in Human Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Dose Used in Risk
                                             Assessment,          Special FQPA SF and
          Exposure/Scenario                Interspecies and       Level of Concern for   Study and Toxicological
                                         Intraspecies and any       Risk Assessment              Effects
                                            Traditional UF
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute Dietary (females 13-49)            An endpoint of concern for the females 13 -49 attributable to a single
                                                    dose was not identified in the hazard data base.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute Dietary (General population         An endpoint of concern for the general population attributable to a
 including infants and children)                 single dose was not identified in the hazard data base
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic Dietary (All populations)      NOAEL= 100 mg/kg/day     Special FQPA SF = 1      Chronic dog
                                       UF = 100...............  cPAD = chronic RfD/      LOAEL = 1,000 mg/kg/day
                                       Chronic RfD = 1.0 mg/kg/  Special FQPA SF = 1.0    based on decreased
                                        day.                     mg/kg/day.               body weight gain
                                                                                (males), increased
                                                                                clotting time (males
                                                                                and females), and
                                                                                increased globulin
                                                                                levels and increased
                                                                                alpha-2 fraction of
                                                                                the serum protein
                                                                                electrophoresis
                                                                                (females)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Short-Term Incidental Oral Exposure    inhalation (or oral)     FQPA SF = 1 cPAD = 1.0   Chronic - dog
 (1 to 30 days)                         study                    mg/kg/day 1 = 1.00 mg/  LOAEL = 1,000 mg/kg/day
(Residential)........................  NOAEL = 100 mg/kg/day).   kg/day                   based on
                                       UF = 100 Chronic RfD =   MOE = 100 (residential)  LOAEL = mg/kg/day based
                                        1.0 mg/kg/day.                                    on decreased body
                                                                                weight gain (males),
                                                                                increased clotting
                                                                                time (males and
                                                                                females), and
                                                                                increased globulin
                                                                                levels and increased
                                                                                alpha-2 fraction of
                                                                                the serum protein
                                                                                electrophoresis
                                                                                (females)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (oral, dermal, inhalation)                No evidence of carcinogenicity in the hazard data base
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. Tolerances have been
established (40 CFR 180.477) for the residues of flumiclorac pentyl, in
or on field corn and soybeans. Risk assessments were conducted by EPA
to assess dietary exposures from flumiclorac pentyl in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
    No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for
flumiclorac pentyl; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure
assessment is unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with
the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID\TM\), which incorporates
food consumption data as reported by respondents in the USDA 1994-1996
and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals
(CSFII), and accumulated exposure to the chemical for each commodity.
The following assumptions were made for the chronic exposure
assessments: For the chronic analyses, tolerance-level residues were
assumed for all food commodities with current or proposed flumiclorac
pentyl tolerances, and it was assumed that all of the crops included in
the analysis were treated. Percent Crop Treated (PCT) and/or
anticipated residues were not used in the chronic risk assessment.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency lacks
sufficient monitoring exposure data to complete a comprehensive dietary
exposure analysis and risk assessment for flumiclorac pentyl in
drinking water.

 Because the Agency does not have comprehensive monitoring data,
drinking water concentration estimates are made by reliance on
simulation or modeling taking into account data on the physical
characteristics of flumiclorac pentyl.
    The Agency uses the Generic Estimated Environmental Concentration
(GENEEC) or the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS) to estimate pesticide concentrations in surface
water and Screening Concentrations in Groundwater (SCI-GROW), which
predicts pesticide concentrations in ground water. In general, EPA will
use GENEEC (a Tier 1 model) before using PRZM/EXAMS (a Tier 2 model)
for a screening-level assessment for surface water. The GENEEC model is
a subset of the PRZM/EXAMS model that uses a specific high-end runoff
scenario for pesticides. GENEEC incorporates a farm pond scenario,
while PRZM/EXAMS incorporate an index reservoir environment in place of
the previous pond scenario. The PRZM/EXAMS model includes a percent
crop area factor as an adjustment to account for the maximum percent
crop coverage within a watershed or drainage basin.
    None of these models include consideration of the impact processing
(mixing, dilution, or treatment) of raw water for distribution as
drinking water would likely have on the removal of pesticides from the
source water. The primary use of these models by the Agency at this
stage is to provide a screen for sorting out pesticides for which it is
unlikely that drinking water concentrations would exceed human health
levels of concern.
    Since the models used are considered to be screening tools in the
risk assessment process, the Agency does not use estimated
environmental concentrations (EECs), which are the model estimates of a
pesticide's concentration in water. EECs derived from these models are
used to quantify drinking water exposure and risk as a %Reference dose
or %Population adjusted dose.
    Based on the FIRST and SCI-GROW models, the EECs of flumiclorac
pentyl for chronic exposures are estimated to be 0.24 parts per billion
(ppb) for surface water and 0.002 ppb for ground water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    Flumiclorac pentyl is currently registered for use on the following
residential non-dietary sites: Non-agricultural settings which include
golf course, parks, recreation areas as well as schools. The risk
assessment was conducted using the following residential exposure
assumptions: The short-term incidental oral exposures was assessed for
toddlers, the most sensitive population possibly exposed to
flumiclorac-pentyl from residential use. Residential Exposure
Assessments for the exposure scenarios described in Table 3 which are
the most likely to result in highest possible exposure by toddlers to
the herbicide.

        Table 3.--Short-Term Residential Exposure Estimates and MOEs for Flumiclorac-pentyl Treated Turf
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Average
                                                  Days After                Daily Dose
             Resident                 Activity    Treatment   Body Weight   (ADD) (mg/     NOAEL         MOE
                                                    (DAT)                    kg/day)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
toddler                                 hand to            0           15       0.0017          100       58,230
                                          mouth
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
toddler                               object to            0           15      0.00043          100      233,000
                                          mouth
                                         (turf)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
toddler                                    soil            0           15            0          100    1.75 E\7\
                                      ingestion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All MOEs, including the total toddler ingestion MOE, are well above
100 and therefore exposures to toddlers from flumiclorac-pentyl are not
of concern.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative
risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made
a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to flumiclorac pentyl and any
other substances and flumiclorac pentyl does not appear to produce a
toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that flumiclorac
pentyl has a commonmechanism of toxicity with other substances. For
information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a
common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of
such chemicals, see the policy statements released by EPA's Office of
Pesticide Programs concerning common mechanism determinations and
procedures for cumulating effects from substances found to have a
common mechanism on EPA's website athttp://www. epa.gov/ pesticidesca/

cumulative/.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408 of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply
an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the
case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the data base on toxicity and exposure
unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of
safety will be safe for infants and children. Margins of safety are
incorporated into EPA risk assessments either directly through use of a
MOE analysis or through using uncertainty (safety) factors in
calculating a dose level that poses no appreciable risk to humans. In
applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X
when reliable data do not support the choice of a different factor, or,
if reliable data are available, EPA uses a different additional safety
factor value based on the use of traditional uncertainty factors and/or

special FQPA safety factors, as appropriate.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is no evidence of
increased susceptibility of rats or rabbits to in utero and/or
postnatal exposure to flumiclorac pentyl. There is no concern for
neurotoxicity.
    3. Conclusion. There is a complete toxicity data base for
flumiclorac pentyl, there is no evidence of increased susceptibility of
rats or rabbits to in utero and/or postnatal exposure to flumiclorac
pentyl, and exposure data are complete or are estimated based on data
that reasonably accounts for potential exposures. The dietary food
exposure assessment utilizes tolerance level residues and 100% crop
treated (CT) information for all commodities. By using these screening-
level assumptions, chronic exposures/risks will not be underestimated.
The dietary drinking water assessment utilizes values generated by
models and associated modeling parameters which are designed to provide
conservative, health protective, high-end estimates of water
concentrations. Accordingly, the additional 10X factor for the
protection of infants and children is removed.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    1. Acute risk. An endpoint of concern attributable to a single
exposure was not identified in the hazard data base and therefore no
acute risk is expected from exposure to flumiclorac pentyl.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to
flumiclorac pentyl from food and drinking water will utilize < 0.01% of
the cPAD for the U.S. population, < 0.01% of the cPAD for the most
highly exposed population subgroup, Children 3-5 years old. Based the
use pattern, chronic residential exposure to residues of flumiclorac
pentyl is not expected.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background exposure level).
    Flumiclorac pentyl is currently registered for use that could
result in short-term residential exposure and the Agency has determined
that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic food and water and short-
term exposures for flumiclorac pentyl.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded that food, drinking water and
residential exposures aggregated result in aggregate MOE of 46,000 for
Children 3-5 years old. This aggregate MOE does not exceed the Agency's
level of concern for aggregate exposure to food and residential uses.

                Table 4.--Aggregate Risk Assessment for Short-Term Exposure to flumiclorac pentyl
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Average
                                                               Maximum       Food +    Residential    Aggregate
            Population             NOAEL mg/kg/   Level of   Exposure mg/    Water     Exposure mg/   MOE (food
                                       day        Concern       kg/day    Exposure mg/    kg/day         and
                                                                             kg/day                 residential)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Children, 3-5 years old                    100        < =100            1            0       0.0017        46,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, and to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to flumiclorac pentyl residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (gas-liquid chromatography with
thermionic-specific detector) is available to enforce the tolerance
expression. The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical
Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft.
Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

B. International Residue Limits

    There are currently no established Codex, Canadian, or Mexican
maximum residue limits for flumiclorac pentyl.

C. Response to Comments

    Public comments were received from B. Sachau who objected to the
proposed tolerances because of the amounts of pesticides already
consumed and carried by the American population. She further indicated
that testing conducted on animals have absolutely no validity and are
cruel to the test animals. B. Sachau's comments contained no scientific
data or evidence to rebut the Agency's conclusion that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to flumiclorac pentyl, including all anticipated dietary exposures and
all other exposures for which there is reliable information. EPA has
responded to B. Sachau's generalized comments on numerous previous
occasions, January 7, 2005 (70 FR 1349, 1354) (FRL-7691-4); October 29,
2004 (69 FR 63083, 63096) (FRL-7681-9).

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, the tolerance is established for residues of flumiclorac
pentyl on cotton undelinted seed at 0.2 ppm and cotton gin by products
at 3.0 ppm.

VI. Objections and Hearing Requests

    Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, as amended by FQPA, any person may
file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request
a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which
govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in
40 CFR part 178. Although the procedures in those regulations require
some modification to reflect the amendments made to FFDCA by FQPA, EPA
will continue to use those procedures, with appropriate adjustments,
until the necessary modifications can be made. The new section 408(g)
of FFDCA provides essentially the same process for persons to
``object'' to a regulation for an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance issued by EPA under new section 408(d) of FFDCA, as was
provided in the old sections 408 and 409 of FFDCA. However, the period
for filing objections is now 60 days, rather than 30 days.

A. What Do I Need to Do to File an Objection or Request a Hearing?

    You must file your objection or request a hearing on this
regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in this unit
and in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must
identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0311 in the subject line on
the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and
must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before May 8,
2006.

    1. Filing the request. Your objection must specify the specific
provisions in the regulation that you object to, and the grounds for
the objections (40 CFR 178.25). If a hearing is requested, the
objections must include a statement of the factual issue(s) on which a
hearing is requested, the requestor's contentions on such issues, and a
summary of any evidence relied upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27).
Information submitted in connection with an objection or hearing
request may be claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that
information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except
in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the
information that does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion
in the public record. Information not marked confidential may be
disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice.
    Mail your written request to: Office of the Hearing Clerk (1900L),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001. You may also deliver your request to the
Office of the Hearing Clerk in Suite 350, 1099 14\th\ St., NW.,
Washington, DC 20005. The Office of the Hearing Clerk is open from 8
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Office of the Hearing Clerk is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2. Copies for the Docket. In addition to filing an objection or
hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in Unit VI.A., you
should also send a copy of your request to the PIRIB for its inclusion
in the official record that is described in ADDRESSES. Mail your
copies, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0311, to: Public
Information and Records Integrity Branch, Information Technology and
Resources Management Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001. In person or by courier, bring a copy to the
location of the PIRIB described in ADDRESSES. Please use an ASCII file
format and avoid the use of special characters and any form of
encryption. Copies of electronic objections and hearing requests will
also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII file format.
Do not include any CBI in your electronic copy. You may also submit an
electronic copy of your request at many Federal Depository Libraries.

B. When Will the Agency Grant a Request for a Hearing?

    A request for a hearing will be granted if the Administrator
determines that the material submitted shows the following: There is a
genuine and substantial issue of fact; there is reasonable possibility
that available evidence identified by the requestor would, if
established resolve one or more of such issues in favor of the
requestor, taking into account uncontested claims or facts to the
contrary; and resolution of the factual issue(s) in the manner sought
by the requestor would be adequate to justify the action requested (40
CFR 178.32).

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of
significance, this rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This final rule does
not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or impose
any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law
104-4). Nor does it require any special considerations under Executive
Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice
in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any Agency action under Executive
Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does
not involve any technical standards that would require Agency
consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Since
tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a
petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply. In addition, the Agency has determined that this
action will not have a substantial direct effect on 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' This final rule directly regulates growers, food
processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action
does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency has
determined that this rule does not have any ``tribal implications'' as
described in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6,
2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in
the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.''
``Policies that have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive
Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.''
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal
governments, 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, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this rule.

VIII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 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
this final rule in the Federal Register. This final rule is not a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: February 27, 2006.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--AMENDED

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

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

0
2. Section 180.477 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:

Sec.  180.477  Flumiclorac pentyl; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of the
herbicide flumiclorac pentyl, [2-chloro-4-fluoro-5-(1,3,4,5,6,7-
hexahydro-1,3-dioxo-2H-isoindol-2-yl)phenoxy]-acetate, in or on the raw
agricultural commodities listed below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corn, field, forage........................................         0.01
Corn, field, grain.........................................         0.01
Corn, field, stover........................................         0.01
Cotton gin by products.....................................          3.0
Cotton, undelinted seed....................................          0.2
Soybean, hulls.............................................         0.02
Soybean, seed..............................................         0.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 06-2151 Filed 3-7-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 23, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15447-15448]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05853]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0177; Airspace Docket No. 21-ACE-9]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Neosho, MO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend the Class E airspace at Neosho
Hugh Robinson Airport, Neosho, MO. The FAA is proposing this action as
the result of an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the
Neosho VHF omnidirectional range (VOR) navigation aid as part of the
VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) Program.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 7, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone
(202) 366-9826, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2021-0177/Airspace Docket No. 21-ACE-9 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the
proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in
the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except federal holidays.
    FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11E at NARA, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would amend the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface at Neosho Hugh Robinson Airport, Neosho, MO, to
support instrument flight rule operations at this airport.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2021-0177/
Airspace Docket No. 21-ACE-9.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic
Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective
September 15, 2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR 71 by amending the
Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to
within a 6.5-mile (reduced from a 7-mile) radius of Neosho Hugh
Robinson Airport, Neosho, MO; and removing the Neosho

VOR/DME and associated extension from the airspace legal description.
    This action is necessary due to an airspace review caused by the
decommissioning of the Neosho VOR, which provided navigation
information for the instrument procedures this airport, as part of the
VOR MON Program.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15,
2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11E,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and
effective September 15, 2020, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ACE MO E5 Neosho, MO [Amended]

Neosho Hugh Robinson Airport, MO
    (Lat. 36[deg]48'39'' N, long. 94[deg]23'30'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Neosho Hugh Robinson Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on March 17, 2021.
Martin A. Skinner,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2021-05853 Filed 3-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P