[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 83 (Friday, April 29, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23898-23903]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10439]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0267; FRL-8870-9]

Mefenpyr-diethyl; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
mefenpyr-diethyl in or on multiple commodities. Bayer CropScience LLC
requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA). This regulation also moves established tolerances for
canola and soybean commodities to correct an administrative error.

DATES: This regulation is effective April 29, 2011. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before June 28, 2011, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0267. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (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 in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those
engaged in the following activities:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to
provide 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 under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-

OPP-2010-0267 in the subject line on the first page of your submission.
All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must
be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before June 28, 2011. Addresses
for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are
provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2
may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit a copy of
your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0267, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of June 23, 2010 (75 FR 35804) (FRL-8831-
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
9F7679) by Bayer CropScience LLC, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27709. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.509 be
amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide
safener, mefenpyr-diethyl including its metabolites and degradates with
compliance to be determined by measuring residues of mefenpyr-diethyl,
(1-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4,5-dihydro-5-methyl-1H-pyrazole-3,5-
dicarboxylic acid, diethyl ester) and its dichlorophenyl-pyrazoline
metabolites, in or on grass, forage at 1.5 parts per million (ppm);
grass, hay at 0.05 ppm; sorghum, forage at 0.1 ppm; sorghum, grain at
0.01 ppm; and sorghum, stover at 0.05 ppm. That notice referenced a
summary of the petition prepared by Bayer CropScience LLC, the
registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the
notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
increased the proposed tolerance for all proposed commodities as
follows: Grass, forage from 1.5 to 1.6 ppm; grass, hay from 0.05 to 0.2
ppm; sorghum, forage from 0.1 to 0.4 ppm; sorghum, grain from 0.01 to
0.04 ppm; and sorghum, stover from 0.05 to 0.2 ppm. The reasons for
these changes are explained in Unit IV.C.
    In the Federal Register of December 10, 2008 (73 FR 74977) (FRL-
8390-8), EPA established tolerances for residues of mefenpyr-diethyl in
or on canola, seed; soybean, forage; soybean, hay; and soybean, seed.
These tolerances were identified as rotational crop tolerances in the
final rule; however, they were placed in paragraph (a) of 40 CFR
180.509 in error. They should have been placed in paragraph (d) as
tolerances for indirect or inadvertent residues. EPA is moving these
tolerances from paragraph (a) to paragraph (d) to correct this
administrative error. Moving these tolerances between subsections has
no substantive effect, it merely makes them easier to identify as
rotational crop tolerances.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. * *
*''
    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors
specified in 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 for mefenpyr-diethyl
including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this
action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with
mefenpyr-diethyl 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.
    Mefenpyr-diethyl has low acute toxicity by the oral, dermal, and
inhalation routes of exposure. It is not a dermal irritant but is a
slight ocular irritant and dermal sensitizer. Repeated exposure of rats
via the dermal route did not induce any treatment-related effects at
dose levels up to and including the limit dose. Repeated exposure
studies via the oral route demonstrate that the target organs are the
liver and hematopoietic system in dogs, mice, and rats. Effects
observed in dogs included increased liver weight and alkaline
phosphatase activity (both sexes), focal liver lesions (females),
slight anemia (both sexes), decreased mean body weight and body weight
gain (females) and decreased food consumption (both sexes). Effects
observed in mice included decreased body weight and kidney weight,
increased liver weight, and hepatocyte hypertrophy (males), as well as
decreased bilirubin and increased lactic acid dehydrogenase values
(females). Effects observed in rats included increases in reticulocyte
counts (both sexes), and decreased red blood count, hemoglobin, and
hematocrit values (females). Mefenpyr-diethyl was negative for
carcinogenicity in rats and mice, and is classified as ``not likely to
be carcinogenic to humans.'' The available studies did not indicate any
genotoxic or neurotoxic potential. Developmental toxicity was not
observed in the rat but was observed in the rabbit (abortions) at the
same dose level producing maternal toxicity. Mefenpyr-diethyl did not
induce any signs of reproductive toxicity. The developmental toxicity
studies in rats and rabbits, as well as the reproductive toxicity study
in rats, did not demonstrate any pre- or post-natal sensitivity.

    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by mefenpyr-diethyl as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document, Mefenpyr-diethyl (HOE 107892) Safener:
Revised Human Health Risk Assessment to Support the New use Petition on
Sorghum [grain, stover, and forage] and Grass Grown for Seed (including
Conservation Reserve Program areas), at pages 31-36 in docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0267.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for mefenpyr-diethyl used
for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.

     Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Mefenpyr-Diethyl for Use in Human Health Risk
                                                   Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Point of departure and
          Exposure/scenario               uncertainty/safety     RfD, PAD, LOC for risk  Study and toxicological
                                               factors                 assessment                effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (Females 13-50 years of  No hazard was identified in any toxicity study for this duration of
 age).                                  exposure.
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (General population      No hazard was identified in any toxicity study for this duration of
 including infants and children).       exposure.
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary (All populations)....  NOAEL = 51 mg/kg/day...  Chronic RfD = 0.51 mg/   chronic oral toxicity
                                       UFA = 10x..............   kg/day.                  study (dog).
                                       UFH = 10x..............  cPAD = 0.51 mg/kg/day..  LOAEL = 260 mg/kg/day,
                                       FQPA SF = 1x...........                            based on increased
                                                                                liver weight in both
                                                                                sexes, cholestasis,
                                                                                and increased alkaline
                                                                                phosphatase.
                                                                                chronic toxicity/
                                                                                carcinogenicity study
                                                                                (rat).
                                                                                LOAEL = 252 (males)/318
                                                                                (females) mg/kg/day,
                                                                                based on statistically
                                                                                significant increases
                                                                                in reticulocyte counts
                                                                                in both sexes, and
                                                                                decreased RBC,
                                                                                hemoglobin, and
                                                                                hematocrit values in
                                                                                females. NOAEL = 48.5
                                                                                (males)/60 (females)
                                                                                mg/kg/day.
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (oral)........................  Classification: Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members
  of the human population (intraspecies). UFL = use of a LOAEL to extrapolate a NOAEL. UFS = use of a short-term
  study for long-term risk assessment. UFDB = to account for the absence of data or other data deficiency. FQPA
  SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD =
  reference dose. MOE = margin of exposure. LOC = level of concern.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to mefenpyr-diethyl, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing mefenpyr-diethyl
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.509. EPA assessed dietary exposures from
mefenpyr-diethyl 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 mefenpyr-diethyl;
therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is
unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996
and 1998 CSFII. As to residue levels in food, EPA conducted a highly
conservative chronic dietary risk assessment for mefenpyr-diethyl using
tolerance level residues and assuming 100% crop treated for all
commodities.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA
classified mefenpyr-diethyl as ``not likely to be carcinogenic to
humans.'' Therefore, an exposure assessment to evaluate cancer risk is
unnecessary for this chemical.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for mefenpyr-diethyl in drinking water. These simulation
models take into

account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of mefenpyr-diethyl. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) and
Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW2) models, the
estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of mefenpyr-diethyl for
chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 3 ppb
for surface water and 4 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 4 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Mefenpyr-diethyl is
not registered for any specific use patterns that would result in
residential exposure.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.'' EPA has not found mefenpyr-
diethyl to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other
substances, and mefenpyr-diethyl does not appear to produce a toxic
metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that mefenpyr-diethyl does
not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For
information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a
common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of
such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative cumulative.

 D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is little concern for
prenatal toxicity resulting from exposure to mefenpyr-diethyl. There is
no evidence of increased susceptibility [qualitative and quantitative]
following in utero exposure to mefenpyr-diethyl in either the rat or
rabbit developmental toxicity study, and there is no evidence of
increased susceptibility [qualitative or quantitative] following in
utero and/or pre-/post-natal exposure in the 2-generation reproduction
study in rats. Developmental toxicity was not observed in the rat at
the limit dose (1000 mg/kg/day) in one of two available rat
developmental studies. In the second study, the only effects observed
were decreased body-weight gain and food efficiency during the first
week of dosing and increased spleen weights in the maternal animal and
a marginal decrease in fetal body weight/body-weight gain during
lactation (postnatal study). Developmental toxicity (abortions) was
observed in the rabbit at a dose level of 250 mg/kg/day. In the
reproduction study, decreased body weight and body-weight gain
(parental animal and offspring) and an increase in spleen weight and in
the severity (not incidence) of splenic extramedullary hematopoiesis
were observed in females. There is no evidence of neurotoxicity, and
there are no residual concerns.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA safety factor were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the
following findings:
    i. The toxicology database for mefenpyr-diethyl is largely
complete, missing only acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies and
an immunotoxicity study. EPA has determined that an additional
uncertainty factor is not needed to account for the lack of these
studies for the following reasons:
     There is no evidence in the existing studies to suggest
that mefenpyr-diethyl targets either the immune system or the nervous
system. EPA considered the entire toxicity database (subchronic,
chronic, carcinogenicity, developmental and reproductive studies) of
mefenpyr-diethyl for evidence of potential immunotoxic and neurotoxic
effects. EPA did note that enlarged spleens, more severe hematopoiesis
and hemosiderin deposits, and increased spleen weights were observed in
mice at doses greater than the limit dose. However, these were
determined to be non-specific changes not indicative of immunotoxicity.
Additionally, no evidence of neurotoxicity was found. Therefore, based
on the above considerations, EPA does not believe that conducting acute
and subchronic neurotoxicity or immunotoxicity studies will result in a
NOAEL less than the NOAEL of 51 mg/kg/day already set for mefenpyr-
diethyl.
     Overall, the toxicity of mefenpyr-diethyl is low. The
endpoints were assumed by EPA to be treatment-related, a conservative
assumption intended to ensure the risk assessment is protective of
potential effects.
    Based on these considerations, EPA does not expect the required
studies to provide lower points of departure than those currently
selected for risk assessment, and an additional uncertainty factor is
not needed to account for the lack of these studies.
    ii. There is no evidence of neurotoxicity in the available
toxicology database and no evidence of significant developmental
toxicity in either the rat or rabbit developmental toxicity studies.
Based on these considerations, there is no need for a developmental
neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence of increased susceptibility in in utero
rats or rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies or in young rats
in the 2-generation reproduction study.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100% CT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to mefenpyr-diethyl in drinking water. These
assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by
mefenpyr-diethyl.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the

estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
mefenpyr-diethyl is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
mefenpyr-diethyl from food and water will utilize less than 1% of the
cPAD for infants, less than 1 year old, the population group receiving
the greatest exposure. There are no residential uses for mefenpyr-
diethyl.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Because
mefenpyr-diethyl does not have residential uses that would result in
residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been
assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as
protective as the POD used to assess short-term risk), no further
assessment of short-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the
chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating short-term risk for,
mefenpyr-diethyl.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level). Because mefenpyr-diethyl does not have residential uses that
would result in residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has
already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is
at least as protective as the POD used to assess short-term risk), no
further assessment of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA
relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating
intermediate-term risk for, mefenpyr-diethyl.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, mefenpyr-diethyl is not expected to pose a cancer risk to
humans.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to mefenpyr-diethyl residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology is available to enforce the
tolerance expression. An enforcement method for plants entitled ``An
Analytical Method for Determination of Residues of AE F107892
(mefenpyr-diethyl) and its Metabolites in Wheat and Barley by Gas
Chromatography using Mass Selective Detection'' is available.
Radiovalidation and independent laboratory validation (ILV) data have
been submitted for the plant method. The Agency determined that this
method is suitable for food tolerance enforcement of mefenpyr-diethyl
and the three metabolites AE F094270, AE F113225, and/or AE F109453.
    This 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

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint U.N. Food and
Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards
program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level. The Codex has not
established a MRL for mefenpyr-diethyl.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-for Tolerances

    EPA has revised the sorghum commodity terms and the tolerances
levels for both sorghum and grass commodities. The sorghum commodity
terms have been revised from ``sorghum, grain;'' ``sorghum, forage;''
and ``sorghum, stover'' to ``sorghum, grain, grain;'' ``sorghum, grain,
forage;'' and ``sorghum, grain, stover'' respectively to agree with the
accepted terminology in the Agency's Food and Feed Vocabulary. EPA has
increased the proposed tolerance for all proposed commodities as
follows: Grass, forage from 1.5 to 1.6 ppm; grass, hay from 0.05 to 0.2
ppm; sorghum, grain, forage from 0.1 to 0.4 ppm; sorghum, grain, grain
from 0.01 to 0.04 ppm; and sorghum, grain, stover from 0.05 to 0.2 ppm.
The grass, forage tolerance was increased from 1.5 ppm to 1.6 ppm
because total mefenpyr-diethyl resides were detected up to 1.59 ppm at
the proposed pre-harvest interval of 0 days in crop field trials. Since
there were no detectible residues of parent or metabolites in the crop
field trials for grass (hay) or sorghum, grain (forage; grain; or
stover), the tolerances are being set based on the sum of the lowest
level of method validation (LLMV) of the parent (mefenpyr-diethyl) and
the three metabolites. The LLMV is 0.05 ppm for grass, hay and sorghum,
grain, stover; 0.10 ppm in sorghum, grain, forage; and 0.01ppm in
sorghum, grain, grain.
    Finally, as noted in Unit II, the petitioner requested that the
proposed tolerances be established for residues of mefenpyr-diethyl,
including its metabolites and degradates, but that compliance with the
tolerance levels be determined by measuring only the sum of mefenpyr-
diethyl and its dichlorophenyl-pyrazoline metabolites, calculated as
the stoichiometric equivalent of mefenpyr-diethyl, in or on the
commodities. EPA is revising the tolerance expression for existing
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.509 to agree with the tolerance expression
proposed in this petition. EPA has determined that it is reasonable to
make this change final without prior proposal and opportunity for
comment, because public comment is not necessary, in that the change
has no substantive effect on the tolerance, but rather is merely
intended to clarify the existing tolerance expression.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of the safener,
mefenpyr-diethyl, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on
grass, forage at 1.6 ppm; grass, hay at 0.2 ppm; sorghum, grain, forage
at 0.4 ppm; sorghum, grain, grain at 0.04 ppm; and sorghum, grain,
stover at 0.2 ppm. Compliance with these tolerances is to be determined
by measuring the sum of mefenpyr-diethyl, (1-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4,5-
dihydro-5-methyl-1H-pyrazole-3,5-dicarboxylic acid, diethyl ester) and
its dichlorophenyl-pyrazoline metabolites, calculated as the
stoichiometric

equivalent of mefenpyr-diethyl, in or on the commodity.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances 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 final rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is
not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal
Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under 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.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or Tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
Tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or Tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4).
    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).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report 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: April 21, 2011.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Section 180.509 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding
paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  180.509  Mefenpyr-diethyl; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of the
safener, mefenpyr-diethyl, including its metabolites and degradates,
when applied at a rate no greater than 0.053 pound safener per acre per
growing season in or on the commodities in the table below. Compliance
with the tolerance levels specified below is to be determined by
measuring only the sum of mefenpyr-diethyl (1-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4,5-
dihydro-5-methyl-1H-pyrazole-3,5-dicarboxylic acid, diethyl ester) and
its 2,4-dichlorophenyl-pyrazoline metabolites, calculated as the
stoichiometric equivalent of mefenpyr-diethyl, in or on the commodity.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barley, grain..............................................         0.05
Barley, hay................................................         0.2
Barley, straw..............................................         0.5
Cattle, meat byproducts....................................         0.1
Goat, meat byproducts......................................         0.1
Grass, forage..............................................         1.6
Grass, hay.................................................         0.2
Hog, meat byproducts.......................................         0.1
Horse, meat byproducts.....................................         0.1
Sheep, meat byproducts.....................................         0.1
Sorghum, grain, forage.....................................         0.4
Sorghum, grain, grain......................................         0.04
Sorghum, grain, stover.....................................         0.2
Wheat, forage..............................................         0.2
Wheat, grain...............................................         0.05
Wheat, hay.................................................         0.2
Wheat, straw...............................................         0.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. Tolerances are established
for the indirect or inadvertent residues of mefenpyr-diethyl, including
its metabolites and degradates, when applied at a rate no greater than
0.053 pound safener per acre per growing season in or on the
commodities identified in the table below. Compliance with the
tolerance levels specified below is to be determined by measuring only
the sum of mefenpyr-diethyl (1-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4,5-dihydro-5-
methyl-1H-pyrazole-3,5-dicarboxylic acid, diethyl ester) and its 2,4-
dichlorophenyl-pyrazoline metabolites, calculated as the stoichiometric
equivalent of mefenpyr-diethyl, in or on the commodity.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canola, seed...............................................         0.02
Soybean, forage............................................         0.1
Soybean, hay...............................................         0.1
Soybean, seed..............................................         0.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2011-10439 Filed 4-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 175)]
[Notices]
[Page 53435]
[DOCID:fr11se06-63]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-542-000]

Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed
Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

September 5, 2006.
    Take notice that on August 31, 2006, Williston Basin Interstate
Pipeline Company (Williston Basin), tendered for filing as part of its
FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1 the following tariff
sheets to become effective October 1, 2006.

Sixty-Fourth Revised Sheet No. 15
Thirty-Seventh Revised Sheet No. 15A
Sixty-Second Revised Sheet No. 18
Thirty-Seventh Revised Sheet No. 18A
Thirty-Seventh Revised Sheet No. 19
Thirty-Seventh Revised Sheet No. 20
Sixth Revised Sheet No. 724

    Williston Basin states that the tariff sheets reflect revisions to
the fuel reimbursement current percentage component of the Company's
total fuel reimbursement percentages for gathering, storage and
transportation services, and to the electric power reimbursement
current rate component of the Company's total electric power
reimbursement rates for gathering, storage and transportation services,
pursuant to Williston Basin's Fuel and Electric Power Reimbursement
Adjustment Provision contained in Section 38 of the General Terms and
Conditions of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of 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 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-14977 Filed 9-8-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 133 (Thursday, July 11, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33006-33008]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14691]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0397; FRL-9996-28-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Basic Inspection and Maintenance Program Certification State
Implementation Plan for the Baltimore Nonattainment Area Under the 2008
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maryland.
This SIP revision satisfies a Clean Air Act (CAA) requirement for
enactment of a vehicle emissions inspection and maintenance (I/M)
program in the Baltimore area--where ambient air quality has been
classified by EPA as ``Moderate'' or higher nonattainment of federal
ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) established in
2008 (hereafter referred to as the 2008 ozone NAAQS). The CAA requires
states to demonstrate that any moderate ozone nonattainment area has
adopted a basic I/M program (as defined by the CAA). In the event an I/
M program was previously enacted to meet a prior NAAQS or other CAA
requirement, the state must show that the enacted I/M program continues
to meet applicable federal requirements for a basic I/M program.
Maryland's SIP revision that is the subject of this action pertains to
CAA requirements for a basic I/M program in the Baltimore area for the
2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA is approving Maryland's I/M program
certification, in accordance with the requirements of the CAA.

DATES: This final rule is effective on August 12, 2019.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0397. All documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (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 through
https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Rehn, Planning & Implementation
Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Mr. Rehn can also be reached
via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Purpose

    On March 19, 2019 (84 FR 9993), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of Maryland. In the NPRM, EPA proposed
approval of Maryland's SIP revision certifying that the existing
vehicle emission inspection program implemented in the Baltimore ozone
nonattainment area satisfies the CAA

requirement under section 182(b)(4) to adopt a vehicle inspection
program in areas newly classified as moderate nonattainment under the
2008 ozone NAAQS. The rationale for EPA's proposed action on the
State's I/M certification SIP was explained in the NPRM and will not be
restated here. No adverse public comments were received on the NPRM;
three supportive comments were received on the NPRM. The formal SIP
revision [SIP #18-01] was submitted by Maryland on March 15, 2018.

II. Final Action

    EPA is approving the submitted motor vehicle I/M certification as a
revision to the Maryland SIP for the Baltimore ozone nonattainment
area.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 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 Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     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.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    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).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by September 9, 2019. 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. This action to approve Maryland's certification that the
existing Baltimore vehicle emissions inspection program meets CAA
requirements for a basic I/M program for the Baltimore ozone
nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: June 25, 2019.
 Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 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 V--Maryland

0
2. In Sec.  52.1070, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an
entry ``Basic vehicle emission inspection and maintenance (I/M) program
requirement certification for the 2008 ozone national ambient air
quality standard'' at the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1070   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          State
   Name of non-regulatory SIP        Applicable         submittal     EPA approval date   Additional explanation
            revision               geographic area        date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Basic vehicle emission           Baltimore.........       3/15/2018  7/11/2019, [Insert  Certification that
 inspection and maintenance (I/                                       Federal Register    Maryland's previously
 M) program requirement                                               citation].          approved regulation at
 certification for the 2008                                                               COMAR 11.14.08 meets
 ozone national ambient air                                                               the requirement for a
 quality standard.                                                                        basic I/M program in
                                                                                the Baltimore Area for
                                                                                the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2019-14691 Filed 7-10-19; 8:45 a.m.]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 4, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 232)]
[Notices]
[Page 68162-68163]
[DOCID:fr04de07-73]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8501-9 ; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0920]

Board of Scientific Counselors, Human Health Risk Assessment
Subcommittee Meeting--December 2007

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-
463, the Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development (ORD), gives notice of one meeting of the Board of
Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Human Health Risk Assessment Subcommittee.

DATES: The meeting (via teleconference) will be held on Thursday,
December 20, 2007, from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., Eastern Time. The meeting
may adjourn early if all business is finished. Requests for the draft
agenda or for making oral presentations at the meeting will be accepted
up to 1 business day before the meeting.

ADDRESSES: Participation in the conference call will be by
teleconference only--a meeting room will not be used. Members of the
public may obtain the call-in number and access code for the call from
Joanna Foellmer, whose contact information is listed under the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice. Submit your
comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0920, by one of
the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: Send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0920.

     Fax: Fax comments to:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Attention: Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0920.
     Mail: Send comments by mail to: Board of Scientific
Counselors, Human Health Risk Assessment Subcommittee Meetings--Fall
2007 Docket, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0920.
     Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver comments to: EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC), Room 3334, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, Attention: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-
0920.

    Note: This is not a mailing address. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-
2007-0920. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site

is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly

to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail

address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. 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. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://.

http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Board of

Scientific Counselors, Human Health Risk Assessment Subcommittee
Meetings--Fall 2007 Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the ORD Docket is (202) 566-
1752.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Designated Federal Officer via
mail to: Joanna Foellmer, Mail Code 8601D, Office of Research and
Development, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; via phone/voice mail at: (202) 564-
3208; via fax at:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or via e-mail at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

    Note: Change in address and phone number as of December 6th. The
mail code will be 8601P. The new phone number will be accessible
from the original phone number<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

General Information

    Any member of the public interested in receiving a draft BOSC
agenda or making a presentation at the meeting may contact Joanna
Foellmer, the Designated Federal Officer, via any of the contact
methods listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above. In
general, each individual making an oral presentation will be limited to
a total of three minutes.
    Proposed agenda item for the meeting includes, but is not limited
to: discussion of the subcommittee's draft report on ORD's Human Health
Risk Assessment Program. The meeting is open to the public. The
subcommittee roster and charge can be accessed at: http://www.epa.gov/osp/bosc/subcomm-hhra.htm
.

    Information on Services for Individuals with Disabilities: For
information on access or services for individuals with disabilities,
please contact Joanna Foellmer on<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To request accommodation of a disability,

please contact Joanna Foellmer, preferably at least 10 days prior to
the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your
request.

    Dated: November 27, 2007.
Connie Bosma,
Acting Director, Office of Science Policy.
 [FR Doc. E7-23485 Filed 12-3-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 60 (Monday, March 30, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16672-16673]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07208]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0734; FRL-9924-51]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Renewal and
Comment Request; Health and Safety Data Reporting, Submission of Lists
and Copies of Health and Safety Studies

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this
document announces that EPA is planning to submit an Information
Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
The ICR, entitled: ``Health and Safety Data Reporting, Submission of
Lists and Copies of Health and Safety Studies'' and identified by EPA
ICR No. 0575.15 and OMB Control No. 2070-0004, represents the renewal
of an existing ICR that is scheduled to expire on November 30, 2015.
Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is
soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information
collection that is summarized in this document. The ICR and
accompanying material are available in the docket for public review and
comment.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 29, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0734, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For technical information contact: Mike Mattheisen, Chemical Control

Division (7405-M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422
South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554-
1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What information is EPA particularly interested in?

    Pursuant to PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)),
EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility.
    2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burden of
the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used.
    3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected.
    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

II. What information collection activity or ICR does this action apply
to?

    Title: Health and Safety Data Reporting, Submission of Lists and
Copies of Health and Safety Studies.
    ICR number: EPA ICR No. 0575.15.
    OMB control number: OMB Control No. 2070-0004.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on November
30, 2015. 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 OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), after
appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR
part 9, are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or
by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection
instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers
for certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: Section 8(d) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
and 40 CFR part 716 require manufacturers and processors of chemicals
to submit lists and copies of health and safety studies relating to the
health and/or environmental effects of certain chemical substances and
mixtures. In order to comply with the reporting requirements of TSCA
section 8(d), respondents must search their records to identify any
health and safety studies in their possession, copy and process
relevant studies, list studies that are currently in progress, and
submit this information to EPA.
    EPA uses this information to construct a complete picture of the
known effects of the chemicals in question, leading to determinations
by EPA of whether additional testing of the chemicals is required. The
information enables EPA to base its testing decisions on the most
complete information available and to avoid demands for testing that
may be duplicative. EPA will use information obtained via this
collection to support its investigation of the risks posed by chemicals
and, in particular, to support its decisions on whether to require
industry to test chemicals under section 4 of TSCA. This information
collection request addresses the reporting requirements found in TSCA
section 8(d).
    Responses to the collection of information are mandatory (see 40
CFR part 716). Respondents may claim all or part of a response
confidential. EPA will disclose information that is covered by a claim
of confidentiality only to the extent permitted by, and in accordance
with, the procedures in TSCA section 14 and 40 CFR part 2.
    Burden statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 10.0
hours per response. Burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related
materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities
and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized here:
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by
this ICR are persons who manufacture, process, or distribute in
commerce chemical substances or mixtures, or who propose to do so.
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 119.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent:
1.3.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 1,605 hours.
    Estimated total annual costs: $116,551. This includes an estimated
burden cost of $116,551 and an estimated cost of $0 for capital
investment or maintenance and operational costs.

III. Are there changes in the estimates from the last approval?

    There is an increase of 242 hours in the total estimated respondent
burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by
OMB. This increase reflects additional burden resulting from the one-
time requirement for respondents to register with EPA's CDX reporting
system and to establish electronic signature agreements, plus
correcting the estimated number of robust summaries submitted each
year. The ICR supporting statement provides a detailed analysis of the
change in burden estimate. This change is an adjustment.

IV. What is the next step in the process for this ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another
Federal Register document pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to
announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit
additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or
the approval process, please contact the technical person listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    Dated: March 20, 2015.
James Jones,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2015-07208 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 247 (Tuesday, December 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77778-77780]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30719]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0169]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 48 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for
various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to
operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without
meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. The Agency has
concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained
without the exemptions for these CMV drivers.

DATES: The exemptions are effective December 24, 2013. The exemptions
expire on December 24, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgement that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) published in the Federal Register on January
17, 2008 (73 FR 3316).

Background

    On October 28, 2013, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of
exemption applications from certain individuals, and requested comments
from the public (78 FR 64274). That notice listed 48 applicants' case
histories. The 48 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period.
Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 48 applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.

Vision and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
    A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor
vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40
(Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity
separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective
lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both
eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least
70[deg] in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to
recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing requirement
red, green, and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
    FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision
requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their vision
limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 48
exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They
are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various
reasons, including complete loss of vision, anophthalmos, amblyopia,
anisometropic amblyopia, penetration trauma, refractive amblyopia,
enucleation, exotropia, prosthetic eye, corneal scar, retinal damage,
macular scar, esotropia, macular hole, visual acuity loss, cataract,
chronic angle closure glaucoma, central retinal artery occlusion, and
idiopathic ischemic event. In most cases, their eye conditions were not
recently developed. Thirty-three of the applicants were either born
with their vision impairments or have had them since childhood.
    The fifteen individuals that sustained their vision conditions as
adults have had it for a period of 3 to 32 years.
    Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected
vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient
vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors'
opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid
commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before
issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests
designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV.
    All of these applicants satisfied the testing requirements for
their State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the
applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV, with their
limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
    While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 48 drivers have been
authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their
vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have
driven CMVs with their limited vision of careers ranging from 3 to 50
years. In the past 3 years, two of the drivers were involved in crashes
and three were convicted for moving violations in a CMV.
    The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the October 28, 2013
notice (78 FR 64274).

Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants
will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the
exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our
analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is
likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in
interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in
intrastate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered the medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as
their driving records and experience with the vision deficiency.
    To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA
requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven
a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3
years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating
future safety, according to several research studies designed to
correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies
support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by
a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations.
Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
    We believe we can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance
of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of
all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996).
The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving
records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other
monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those
required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to
their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex, geographic location,
mileage driven and conviction history--are used every day by insurance
companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an
individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C.,
``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression
Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American Statistical
Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared
by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best
overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is
the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years
of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with
their experiences in the final year.
    Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of
the 48 applicants, two of the drivers were involved in crashes and
three were convicted of moving violations in a CMV. All the applicants
achieved a record of safety while driving with their vision impairment,
demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving
skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving
histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future
performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be
projected into the future.
    We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and
history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive
safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate
operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate
system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover,
driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian
and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster
reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because
distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual
capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving
conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs
safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much
longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that
each applicant is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely
as he/she has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently,
FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to
that existing without the exemption. For this reason, the Agency is
granting the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315 to the 48 applicants listed in the notice of October
28, 2013 (78 FR 64274).
    We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect
his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a
condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements
on the 48 individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions
applied to drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver
program.
    Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the
following: (1) That each individual be physically examined every year
(a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in
the better eye continues to meet the requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10) and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the
individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2)
that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or
optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual
medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the
annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the
driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's
qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must have a
copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly
authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received one comment in this proceeding.

Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 48 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts Lawrence A. Angle (MO), Alois K. Asche (IN), John P. Bails
(IA), Craig J. Belles (NY), John E. Bellosi, Jr. (MD), Thomas A. Black
(MO), Eugene R. Briggs (MI), Matthew S. Burns (OH), Ryan J. Burnworth
(MO), Dennis W. Burrage II (OR), Freddie A. Carrasquillo (TX), Luis
Castelleon-Berrios (NY), Michael D. Champion (VT), Kevin J. Cobb (PA),
Walter F. Crean III (CT), Lee A. DeHaan (SD), Vincent DeMedici (PA),
Bradley R. Dishman (KY), Christopher T. Faber (FL), Frederick E. Foster
(VA), Gregory K. Frazier (GA), John E. Gannon, Jr. (NV), Thomas G.

Gholston (MS), Thomas J. Grant (MI), Donald Latozke (ND), Michael R.
Leftwich (GA), Luther D. Long (GA), George Malivuk (WI), Humberto
Mendoza (TX), Chad Miller (IA), Calvin Nesbitt (GA), Vincent R. Neville
(MN), William L. Paschall (MD), Emiterio M. Pena (NM), Daniel F. Perez
(CA), Kerry R. Powers (IN), Jonathan Pryor (OK), Nick A. Reed (OH), Joe
W. Restine (OK), Noel S. Robbins (PA), Steven T. Ross (MS), Charles E.
Schmitz (MO), Raymond C. Schultz (OH), James A. Shepard (NY), Timothy
R. Steckman (IL), Mark P. Thiboutot (NH), Herman D. Truewell (FL), and
Jason M. Wolf (CO) from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10),
subject to the requirements cited above (49 CFR 391.64(b)).
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption
will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The
exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the
terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted
in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted;
or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
    If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year
period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in
effect at that time.

    Issued on: December 16, 2013.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-30719 Filed 12-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 70 (Friday, April 10, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 20309]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07750]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 15, 2020.

PLACE: The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the
Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners,
the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend
the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the
matters also may be present.
    In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting
changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date,
and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website
at https://www.sec.gov.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10),
permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the
following topic:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Resolution of litigation claims; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of
adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information; please
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202)
551-5400.

    Dated: April 8, 2020.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-07750 Filed 4-8-20; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 99 (Friday, May 22, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 29696]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12470]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 3503-011]

El Dorado Hydro; Elk Creek Hydro, LLC; Notice of Transfer of
Exemption

    1. By letter filed April 24, 2015,\1\ William B. Conway, Jr.,
Counsel for Enel Green Power North America, Inc. (EGPNA),\2\ informed
the Commission that the exemption from licensing for the Elk Creek
Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 3503, originally issued July 1,
1981,\3\ has been transferred to Elk Creek Hydro, LLC, an affiliate of
Enel Green Power. The project is located on the Elk and Little Creeks
and the Little Salmon River in Idaho County, Idaho. The transfer of an
exemption does not require Commission approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Seventeen other exempted projects which are to be
transferred were included in the April 24, 2015 letter. These
exemptions will be handled under separate proceedings.
    \2\ Enel Green Power North America, Inc. is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Enel Green Power. Enel Green Power is a well-
capitalized publicly traded company.
    \3\ 16 FERC ] 62,009, Order Granting Exemption from Licensing of
a Small Hydroelectric Project of 5 Megawatts or Less (1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Elk Creek Hydro, LLC is now the exemptee of the Elk Creek
Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 3503. All correspondence should be
forwarded to: Elk Creek Hydro, LLC, c/o Enel Green Power North America,
Inc., Attn: General Counsel, 1 Tech Drive, Suite 220, Andover, MA
01810.

    Dated: May 18, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-12470 Filed 5-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 155 (Monday, August 12, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 39885]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17353]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, August 15, 2019.

PLACE: The meeting will be held at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F
Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners,
the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend
the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the
matters also may be present.
    In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting
changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date,
and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website
at https://www.sec.gov.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10),
permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    The subject matters of the closed meeting will consist of the
following topics:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Resolution of litigation claims; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of
adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information; please
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202)
551-5400.

    Dated: August 8, 2019.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-17353 Filed 8-8-19; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


P-22-0164 Sanitized Support Documents Index:
 P-22-0164 Sanitized Determination Document (linked)
 P-22-0164 Sanitized Premanufature Notice (attached)
 P-22-0164 Sanitized CHEM Report (attached)
 P-22-0164 Sanitized ECO Report (attached)
 P-22-0164 Sanitized ENG Report (attached)
 P-22-0164 Sanitized EXP Report (attached)
 P-22-0164 Sanitized Fate Report (attached)
 P-22-0164 Sanitized HLTH Report_POST-FOCUS FINAL (attached)