[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 36 (Friday, February 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 12305]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04075]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2602-004.
    Applicants: NewPage Energy Services, LLC.
    Description: NewPage Energy Services, LLC Market-Based Rate Tariff
to be effective 2/12/2013.
    Filed Date: 2/11/13.
    Accession Number: 20130211-5141.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 3/4/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2603-002.
    Applicants: Rumford Paper Company.
    Description: Rumford Paper Company Market-Based Rate Tariff to be
effective 2/12/2013.
    Filed Date: 2/11/13.
    Accession Number: 20130211-5150.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 3/4/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2604-002.
    Applicants: Luke Paper Company.
    Description: Luke Paper Company Market-Based Rate Tariff to be
effective 2/12/2013.
    Filed Date: 2/11/13.
    Accession Number: 20130211-5136.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 3/4/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2606-004.
    Applicants: Consolidated Water Power Company.
    Description: Consolidated Water Power Company Market-Based Rate
Tariff to be effective 2/12/2013.
    Filed Date: 2/11/13.
    Accession Number: 20130211-5129.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 3/4/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2609-004.
    Applicants: Escanaba Paper Company.
    Description: Escanaba Paper Company Market-Based Rate Tariff to be
effective 2/12/2013.
    Filed Date: 2/11/13.
    Accession Number: 20130211-5131.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 3/4/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-410-001.
    Applicants: Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance Filing to be effective 6/22/2012.
    Filed Date: 2/11/13.
    Accession Number: 20130211-5191.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 3/4/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-922-000.
    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Wisconsin corporation.
    Description: 2013-02-12--NSPW Medford Intercon Agrmt-NOC-317 to be
effective 12/31/2012.
    Filed Date: 2/12/13.
    Accession Number: 20130212-5063.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 3/5/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-923-000.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Southwest Valley 500kV Project between SRP and APS to
be effective 4/15/2013.
    Filed Date: 2/12/13.
    Accession Number: 20130212-5081.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 3/5/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-924-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 02-12-2013 SA 2510 Rochester Minn La Crosse T-T IA to
be effective 2/13/2013.
    Filed Date: 2/12/13.
    Accession Number: 20130212-5117.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 3/5/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-925-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 02-12-2013 SA 2511 NSP-MN Minn La Crosse T-T IA to be
effective 2/13/2013.
    Filed Date: 2/12/13.
    Accession Number: 20130212-5121.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 3/5/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-926-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 02-12-2013 SA 2512 NSP-WI Wisc La Crosse Owners T-T IA
to be effective 2/13/2013.
    Filed Date: 2/12/13.
    Accession Number: 20130212-5123.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 3/5/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-927-000.
    Applicants: AES Beaver Valley, LLC.
    Description: AES Beaver Valley, LLC submits Notice of Termination
of Transmission Agreement.
    Filed Date: 2/12/13.
    Accession Number: 20130212-5134.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 3/5/13.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 12, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-04075 Filed 2-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

	OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDE

	AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 MEMORANDUM

DATE:  		30-SEP-2008

SUBJECT:		4-(4-chloro-2-methylphenoxy)butanoic acid (MCPB); Application
for a Section 3 Registration on Mint.  Summary of Analytical Chemistry
and Residue Data.

PC Code:  019201	DP Barcode:  349646

Decision No.:  383254	Registration No.:  71368-5

Petition No.:  7E7257	Regulatory Action:  Section 3 Registration

Risk Assessment Type:  NA	Case No.:  2365

TXR No.:  NA	CAS No.:  94-81-5

MRID No.:  47218701	40 CFR:  180.318

		              									Ver.Apr.08

FROM:			Sarah J. Levy, Chemist

			Registration Action Branch 1 (RAB1)

			Health Effects Division (HED; 7509P)

THROUGH:	George F. Kramer, Ph.D., Senior Chemist

			RAB1/HED (7509P)

TO:			Daniel Rosenblatt, Risk Manager 05

			Registration Division (RD; 7505P)

This document was originally prepared under contract by Dynamac
Corporation (2275 Research Blvd, Suite 300; Rockville, MD 20850;
submitted 06-FEB-2008).  The document has been reviewed by the HED and
revised to reflect current Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP)
policies.Executive Summary

4-(4-chloro-2-methylphenoxy)butanoic acid (referred to as MCPB) is a
phenoxybutyric acid herbicide currently registered to Nufarm Americas
Inc., for the control or suppression of Canada thistle and certain other
broadleaf weeds.  The only currently registered food/feed use of MCPB is
on peas.  A tolerance for negligible residues of MCPB has been
established under 40 CFR §180.318(a) for pea at 0.1 ppm (N) and is
currently expressed in terms of MCPB per se.

The Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4), on behalf of the
Agricultural Experiment Station of Washington, has submitted a petition,
PP#7E7257, proposing the establishment of a permanent tolerance for
residues of the herbicide MCPB in/on:

Mint tops (leaves and stems)	0.25 ppm

Concurrently, the petitioner has   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 requested an
amendment of the end-use product, Thistrol® Herbicide (EPA Reg. No.
71368-5), a 2 lb acid equivalent (ae)/gal emulsifiable-concentrate (EC)
formulation of MCPB sodium salt, to include a new use pattern on mint.
Thistrol® is proposed for a fall application to established mint at up
to 0.5 lb ae/A with a 40-day preharvest interval (PHI); a spring
treatment may also be made at an unspecified rate.  The proposed use
pattern should be revised to specify a maximum seasonal rate.

For purposes of this petition, based on the pea foliage metabolism data
and since mint is a minor crop (low-consumption commodity), the nature
of the residue in primary crops is adequately understood based on a
metabolism study conducted with peas.  The HED Metabolism Committee has
determined that the residues to be regulated for both tolerance and risk
assessment purposes in plant commodities are the free and conjugated
MCPB and MCPA ((4-chloro-2-methylphenoxy)acetic acid).

There are no livestock feedstuffs associated with the proposed use on
mint.  Therefore, no livestock metabolism data are required to support
this petition.  Data pertaining to livestock enforcement method, storage
stability data, or feeding studies are also not required.

The Agency previously requested that a method for the determination of
free and conjugated MCPB and MCPA be developed for enforcement purposes.
 A gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) analytical method
entitled, “An Analytical Method for the Determination of Residues of
MCPB and its Metabolite MCPA in Peas, Vines and Pods” was previously
submitted for plant commodities.  Upon review, the Agency found the
method inadequate and requested the method be revised and new method
validation data be submitted for the revised method.

Acceptable analytical method and validation data were submitted for
MCPB, MCPA and 2-HMCPA in pea matrices.  These data have been reviewed
by HED and are classified as scientifically acceptable (Memo, T.
Goodlow, 01-JUL-2008; DP#: 330176).  The review of the method and
validation were sent to the Biological and Economic Analysis
Division’s (BEAD’s) Analytical Chemistry Laboratory (ACL) and deemed
adequate for enforcement purposes (e-mail, C. Stafford to D. Vogel,
16-JUN-2008).

For data collection, samples of mint tops (leaves and stems) and oil
were analyzed for residues of free and conjugated MCPB and MCPA using a
GC/MS method similar to that developed for peas.  The lowest level of
method validation (LLMV) for MCPB and MCPA was 0.05 ppm each in/on mint
tops and oil.  The method was adequately validated prior to and in
conjunction with the analysis of field trial samples.

The submitted magnitude of the residue data for mint tops are adequate
pending revised Sections B.  The conducted trials reflect the proposed
PHI but the application rates were 1.5-2x the maximum proposed single
application rate.  There are adequate storage stability data to validate
the storage conditions and durations of samples collected from the field
trials.  Label revisions are requested to specify a maximum seasonal
rate.  The field trial data for mint were entered into the spreadsheet
(Guidance for Setting Pesticide Tolerances Based on Field Trial Data
SOP) to determine an appropriate tolerance level for mint top.

An adequate processing study was conducted on mint.  The study showed
that the combined residues of MCPB and MCPA did not concentrate in mint
oil; therefore, a tolerance for mint oil is not required.

A satisfactory confined accumulation in rotational crops study following
application of MCPB is requested before the appropriate PBIs and the
need for a limited field rotational crop study can be determined.  HED
recommends further that the confined rotational crop study monitor for
both MCPB and MCPA.

Analytical standards for MCPB and MCPA are currently available in the
EPA National Pesticide Standards Repository.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Regulatory Recommendations and Residue Chemistry
Deficiencies

Pending submission of a revised Section B (see requirements under
860.1200) and a revised Section F (see requirements under 860.1550),
there are no residue chemistry issues that would preclude granting a
conditional registration for use of the MCPB herbicide on mint or the
establishment of permanent tolerances for the combined residues of free
and conjugated MCPB and MCPA as follows:

Peppermint, tops	0.20 ppm

Spearmint, tops	0.20 ppm

Note to RD:  The current tolerance established under 40 CFR §180.318 is
for residues of 4-(2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxy)butyric acid) [MCPB] per se
in/on peas at 0.1 ppm.  The tolerance expression should be revised in
accordance with recommendations from the HED Metabolism Committee
decision (08-JUN-1995) and the HED Chapter of the RED (Memo, E. Méndez,
04-AUG-2005; DP#: 314047)).  The residues of concern for both tolerance
enforcement and risk assessment purposes are MCPB and MCPA, free and
conjugated.  The preferred chemical names for MCPB and MCPA are
4-(4-chloro-2-methylphenoxy)butanoic acid and
(4-chloro-2-methylphenoxy)acetic acid, respectively.

A human-health risk assessment is forthcoming in a separate document.

860.1200  Directions for Use

•	The petitioner should submit a revised Section B to specify a
maximum seasonal use rate for mint.  The submitted crop field trial data
will support a maximum total application rate of 1.8 lb ae/A, with a
single fall application at up to 1 lb ae/A and a subsequent spring
application at up to 0.8 lb ae/A.  In addition, the label should be
revised to specify minimum ground and aerial spray volumes.  Appropriate
plant-back intervals (PBIs) will be determined following the review of
an acceptable MCPB confined rotational crop study; however, until that
time, a revised Section B should be submitted to specify that rotation
should be limited to crops from which MCPB or MCPA use is registered.

860.1550  Proposed Tolerances

•	The petitioner should submit a revised Section F to reflect the
residues of concern and to reflect correct commodity definition and
tolerance levels as reflected in Table 7.

860.1800  Confined Accumulation in Rotational Crops

•	A satisfactory confined accumulation in rotational crops study
following application of MCPB is requested before the appropriate PBIs
and the need for a limited field rotational crop study can be
determined.  HED recommends further that the confined rotational crop
study monitor for both MCPB and MCPA.

Background

MCPB is a selective herbicide used postemergence as a broadcast foliar
application to control broad-leaved annual and perennial weeds (Canada
thistle).  The end-use products are sodium salts; the only registered
food use is on peas.  The chemical structure and nomenclature of MCPB
and its metabolite MCPA are presented in Table 1.  The physiochemical
properties of the technical grade of MCPB are presented in Table. 2.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Table 1.		MCPB Nomenclature.

Chemical structure

Common name	MCPB

IUPAC name	4-(4-chloro-o-tolyloxy)butyric acid

CAS name	4-(4-chloro-2-methylphenoxy)butanoic acid

CAS registry number	94-81-5

End-use product (EP)	2 lb ae/gal EC sodium salt formulation (Thistrol®
Herbicide; EPA Reg. No. 71368-5)

Chemical structure of

MCPA metabolite

(4-chloro-2-methylphenoxy)acetic acid

Table 2. 	Physicochemical Properties of MCPB.

Parameter	Value	Reference

Melting point/range	101.5-103.0ºC	RD Memorandum;

H. Podall, 08-MAR-2002; DP# 279212

pH	5.6 (1% w/v)

	Density	1.26 g/mL at 20ºC

	Water solubility at 20ºC	60.4 mg/L (purified water)

29.9 mg/L in pH 4 buffer

3.83 mg/L in pH 7 buffer

>250 g/L in pH 10 buffer

	Solvent solubility at 20ºC	n-heptane			0.414 g/L

xylene			37.6 g/L

methylene chloride		69.9 g/L

n-octanol			71.6 g/L

ethyl acetate		144 g/L

methanol & acetone	>250 g/L

	Vapor pressure 	4 x 10-7 torr at 25ºC

	Dissociation constant, pKa	4.6 at 20ºC

	Octanol/water partition coefficient, Log(KOW)	pH 4	3.45

pH 7	1.33

pH 10	-0.21

	UV/visible absorption spectrum						dm/

solvent 		conc.	max	  A       (mol/cm)

water/MeOH	20.78	229	0.881	9700

		103.9	280	0.797	1750

			286sh	0.697	1530

Acid/MeOH	20.78	229	0.888	9770

		103.9	280	0.799	1760

			287sh	0.697	1530

Base/MeOH	20.78	229	0.871	9590

		103.9	280	0.800	1760

			287sh	0.695	1530

860.1200  Directions for Use

The petitioner has submitted an undated draft label for the 2 lb ae/gal
EC formulation (Thistrol® Herbicide; EPA Reg. No. 71368-5) of MCPB
sodium salt.  A summary of the proposed use pattern for mint is detailed
in Table 3.

Table 3.     Summary of Directions for Use of MCPB.

Applic. Timing, Type, and Equip.	Formulation

[EPA Reg. No.]	Applic. Rate

(lb ae/A)	Max. No. Applic. per Season	Max. Seasonal Applic. Rate

(lb ae/A)	PHI

(days)

Mint

Early Postemergence;

Ground or aerial	2 lb ae/gal EC

[71368-5]	0.25-0.5	Not specified

(NS)	NS	40

	Use Directions and Limitations:  For control of winter annual weeds, a
fall application at 0.25-0.5 lb ae/A may be applied.  A single spring
application works best for field bindweed suppression.  Application may
be made alone or as a tank mix with other herbicides.  Do not use this
product if minor mint injury is unacceptable.  PBIs for rotational crops
are not specified.

Conclusions.  The proposed use directions are incomplete to allow
evaluation of the residue data relative to the proposed use on mint.  A
revised Section B should be submitted to specify a maximum seasonal rate
for mint.  The submitted crop field trial data will support a maximum
total application rate of 1.8 lb ae/A, with a single fall application at
up to 1 lb ae/A and a subsequent spring application at up to 0.8 lb
ae/A.  In addition, the label should be revised to specify minimum
ground and aerial spray volumes.  The need for PBIs will be determined
following the review of an outstanding MCPB confined rotational crop
study; however, until that time, a revised Section B should be submitted
to specify that rotation can only occur to a MCPB or MCPA registered
crop.

860.1300 Nature of the Residue - Plants

HED Memo:  S. Funk, 20-JUN-1995; DP#s: 196282 and 207498

For purposes of this petition, based on the pea foliage metabolism data
and since mint is a minor crop (low-consumption commodity), the nature
of the residue in primary crops is adequately understood based on a
metabolism study conducted on peas.  MCPB is metabolized to MCPA, and
the latter is hydroxylated to 6-chloro-2-hydroxymethylphenoxy acetic
acid.  The HED Metabolism Committee (08-JUN-1995) determined that the
residues to be regulated for both tolerance and risk assessment purposes
in plant commodities are the free and conjugated MCPB and MCPA.

NOTE to RD:  The current tolerance established under 40 CFR §180.318 is
for residues of MCPB per se in/on peas at 0.1 ppm.  The tolerance
expression should be revised in accordance with these recommendations
(the HED Metabolism Committee decision and the HED Chapter of the
Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document (RED) (Memo, E. Méndez,
04-AUG-2005; DP#: 314047)).

860.1300 Nature of the Residue - Livestock

There are no livestock feedstuffs associated with the proposed use on
mint.  Therefore, data requirements for livestock metabolism are not
relevant to this tolerance petition.

860.1340 Residue Analytical Methods

Tolerance enforcement methods

HED Memo:  S. Funk, 23-MAY-1996; DP#: 224170

HED Memo:  T. Goodlow, 01-JUL-2008; DP#: 330176

The Pesticide Analytical Manual (PAM) Vol. II lists PAM Vol. I, Section
222 Method A for chlorophenoxy acids in nonfatty foods.  A limit of
quantitation (LOQ) is not specified.  For enforcement of tolerances for
MCPA, PAM Vol. II lists PAM Vol. I, Sections 221.1, 421, and 422.  A LOQ
is not specified.  HED notes that Section 221.1 has now become Section
402 (GC method for acids and phenols) and Sections 421 and 422
(thin-layer chromatography (TLC) methods) no longer exist.  The Residue
Chemistry Chapter of the Registration Standard for MCPA, dated
31-AUG-1981, noted that the PAM Vol. I method is adequate for
enforcement of tolerances for residues of MCPA in livestock commodities
as-is but recommended that the method be modified with a hydrolysis step
for enforcement of MCPA tolerances for plant commodities.

The Agency previously requested that a method for the determination of
MCPB and MCPA be developed for enforcement purposes.  In response, a
GC/MS analytical method entitled, “An Analytical Method for the
Determination of Residues of MCPB and its Metabolite MCPA in Peas, Vines
and Pods” was submitted for plant commodities.  In the review of the
method, no additional work was requested concerning radiovalidation,
provided extensive changes were not made to the extraction and
hydrolysis steps, but the Agency recommended that the method be modified
to provide increased precision at the current tolerance of 0.1 ppm for
peas, that analyte qualitative identification and quantitation
procedures be revised, and that a new validation data (cold study) be
submitted after the improvements are made.  After acceptable method
validation of the revised method, an ILV should also be conducted.

Analytical method and validation data were submitted for MCPB, MCPA and
2-HMCPA in pea matrices.  These data have been reviewed by HED and are
classified as scientifically acceptable (Memo, T. Goodlow, 01-JUL-2008;
DP#: 330176).  The review of the method and validation were sent to the
Biological and Economic Analysis Division’s (BEAD’s) Analytical
Chemistry Laboratory (ACL) and deemed adequate for enforcement purposes
(e-mail, C. Stafford to D. Vogel, 16-JUN-2008).

Data-collection method

In the mint field trial and processing studies, samples of mint tops and
oil were analyzed for residues of MCPB and MCPA using the GC/MS method
entitled, “Gas Chromatographic/Mass Spectrometric Method for Analysis
of Chlorophenoxy Acid Herbicides:  MCPB and MCPA in Peas” with minor
modifications.  For mint tops, modifications included a reduced sample
size and estimating the speed of centrifugation since the tachometer on
the centrifuge was inoperative.  For mint oil, modifications included
devising a different extraction scheme to accommodate both MCPB and an
oil matrix (use of acetone and acetone/water was not compatible for the
oily matrix), reduced sample size, centrifugation not needed, and the
partitioning step changed to accommodate an oily matrix.  This method is
similar to the method previously developed for the analysis of MCPB and
MCPA in peas (Memo, S. Funk, 23-MAY-1996; DP#: 224170).

For mint tops, homogenized samples were sequentially extracted with
acetone and acetone/water (1:1, v:v), centrifuged, and the supernatants
combined.  The extract was acidified with concentrated hydrochloric acid
and partitioned with petroleum ether.  The aqueous layer was
repartitioned two more times with petroleum ether.  The combined
petroleum ether fractions were evaporated to dryness and derivatized
with diazomethane.  Hexane was added, the sample was rotary evaporated
just to dryness, and additional hexane was added prior to Florisil
column cleanup, using 5% ethyl acetate/hexane to elute residues.  The
eluate was analyzed by GC/MS.  For mint tops, the following ions are
monitored for MCPB:  m/z 141 and 242 (quantitation) and MCPA:  m/z 214
(quantitation) and 216.  The calculated LOQ and limit of detection (LOD)
for MCPB, were 0.012 and 0.004 ppm for mint tops.  The calculated LOQ
and LOD for MCPA, were 0.009 and 0.003 ppm for mint tops.  The LLMV for
both MCPB and MCPA was 0.05 ppm for mint tops.

Mint oil samples were dissolved in hexane and extracted with 0.01N
sodium hydroxide containing sodium chloride or sodium sulfate.  The
aqueous layer was acidified with concentrated hydrochloric acid and
partitioned into dichloromethane/hexane.  The dichloromethane/hexane
fraction was dried through anhydrous sodium sulfate.  The aqueous layer
was repartitioned two more times with dichloromethane/hexane.  The
combined organic fractions were evaporated to dryness and derivatized
with diazomethane.  Hexane was added to the sample, rotary evaporated
just to dryness, and additional hexane added prior to Florisil column
cleanup, using 5% ethyl acetate/hexane to elute residues.  The resulting
eluate was concentrated and residues redissolved in 0.1% corn oil in
hexane for GC/MS analysis.  For mint oil, the following ions are
monitored for MCPB:  m/z 242 and MCPA:  m/z 214 and 216.  The calculated
LOQ and limit of detection LOD for MCPB were 0.044 and 0.015 ppm for
mint oil; the calculated LOQ and LOD for MCPA were 0.039 and 0.013 ppm.
The LLMV for both MCPB and MCPA was 0.05 ppm for mint oil.

The method was adequately validated prior to and in conjunction with the
analysis of field trial samples, using samples of untreated mint tops
fortified with MCPB and MCPA at 0.05-0.20 ppm each and oil fortified
with MCPB and MCPA at 0.05-0.10 ppm each.

Conclusions:  The GC/MS method is adequate as a data-collection method
for the determination of MCPB and MCPA in mint tops and oil; the method
is similar to the proposed GC/MS enforcement method.  Acceptable
analytical method and validation data were submitted for MCPB, MCPA and
2-HMCPA in pea matrices.  These data have been reviewed by HED and are
classified as scientifically acceptable (Memo, T. Goodlow, 01-JUL-2008;
DP#: 330176). The review of the method and validation were sent to
BEAD’s ACL and deemed adequate for enforcement purposes (e-mail, C.
Stafford to D. Vogel, 16-JUN-2008).

860.1360 MRMs

No MRM testing data were submitted with this petition.  The FDA PESTDATA
database (dated JUN-2005) indicates that MCPB is completely recovered
using multiresidue method Section 402 E1 and Section 402 E2, but a small
recovery (4-13%) using multiresidue method Section 402.  Recovery of
MCPA is variable (60-131%) using multiresidue method Section 402 (method
for acids and phenols).  The database did not include any information
for any of the other test methods.  Use of MRMs for purposes of MCPB
tolerance enforcement is not adequate, as there is no hydrolysis step to
release conjugated residues.

860.1380 Storage Stability

DER Reference List:	47218701.de1.doc

			47218701.de2.doc

The storage durations and conditions of samples from the crop field
trial and processing studies submitted to support this petition are
presented in Table 4.

Table 4.		Summary of Storage Conditions and Durations of Samples from
Crop Field Trial and Processing Studies.

Matrix 	Storage Temperature

 (°C)	Actual Storage Duration	Interval of Demonstrated

Storage Stability

Mint tops 	<-20	43-80 days (1.4-2.6 months)	109 days

Mint oil	<-20	70-86 days (2.3-2.8 months)	91 days

To demonstrate the stability of residues in/on mint tops and oil, a
freezer storage stability study was conducted concurrently with the mint
field trial and processing studies.  Control samples of mint tops and
oil were fortified with MCPB and MCPA, each at 0.10 ppm and placed in
frozen storage.  After 109 (mint tops) or 91 (mint oil) days of frozen
storage, triplicate stored samples were analyzed along with a control
sample and three freshly fortified samples.

Conclusions:  Residues of MCPB and MCPA were determined stable in/on
mint tops and oil stored frozen for up to 3.6 and 3 months,
respectively.  These data support the frozen storage conditions and
durations of samples from the submitted mint field trial and processing
studies.

860.1480 Meat, Milk, Poultry, and Eggs

There are no livestock feedstuffs associated with the proposed use on
mint.  Therefore, data requirements pertaining to meat, milk, poultry,
and eggs are not relevant to this tolerance petition.

860.1500 Crop Field Trials

DER Reference List:	47218701.de1.doc

Five   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 mint field trials were conducted in the U.S.
during the 2002 growing season in Zones 5 (WI; 2 trials) and 11 (WA; 3
trials).  At each trial location, two broadcast applications of the 2 lb
ae/gal EC sodium salt formulation of MCPB were made.  The first
application was made at 0.961-1.042 lb ae/A (~2x) in the fall when mint
was dormant.  The second application was made at 0.745-0.789 lb ae/A
(~1.5x) in the spring 191-220 days after the first application, for a
total rate of 1.71-1.81 lb ae/A (~1.8x).  Applications were made in
~25-34 gal/A using ground equipment, without an adjuvant.    SEQ CHAPTER
\h \r 1 Samples of mint tops (leaves & stems) were collected 38-40 days
following the second (last) application.

Samples of mint tops were analyzed for residues of free and conjugated
MCPB and MCPA using the GC/MS method entitled, “Gas
Chromatographic/Mass Spectrometric Method for Analysis of Chlorophenoxy
Acid Herbicides:  MCPB and MCPA in Peas” with minor modifications.
This method is similar to the method previously developed for the
analysis of free and conjugated MCPB and MCPA in peas (Memo, S. Funk,
23-MAY-1996; DP#: 224170).  The method was adequately validated prior to
and in conjunction with the analysis of field trial samples.  The LLMV
for both MCPB and MCPA was 0.05 ppm in mint.  The calculated LOQ and LOD
for MCPB, were 0.012 and 0.004 ppm for mint tops.  The calculated LOQ
and LOD for MCPA, were 0.009 and 0.003 ppm for mint tops.  Mint samples
were stored frozen up to 2.6 months prior to analysis; adequate
concurrent storage stability data are available to support sample
storage conditions and durations.

The results of the mint trials are summarized below in Table 5.  Maximum
individual residues of MCPB and MCPA were 0.13 ppm and <0.05 ppm,
respectively, in/on mint tops harvested 38-40 days following treatment
with the 2 lb ae/gal EC for a total rate of 1.71-1.81 lb ae/A.  Maximum
combined MCPB and MCPA residues were <0.18 ppm in/on mint tops.

Table 5.	Summary of Residue Data from Mint Field Trials with MCPB.

Commodity	Total Applic. Rate

(lb ae/A) 	PHI (days)	Analyte	Residue Levels (ppm)1

n	Min.	Max.	HAFT2	Median	Mean	Std.

Dev.

Proposed use pattern = Fall and spring applications may be made with
fall treatment at 0.25-0.5 lb ae/A.  Spring application and total
application rates not specified.  The proposed PHI is 40 days.

Mint tops	1.71-1.81	38-40	MCPB	10	<0.05	0.13	0.12	0.08	0.08	0.03

	MCPA	10	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	0.05	0.05	--

	Total3	10	<0.10	<0.18	<0.17	0.13	0.13	0.03

1  The LLMV (0.05 ppm) was used for any results reported as <LLMV.

2  HAFT = Highest-Average Field Trial.

3  Total combined MCPB and MCPA residues.

Conclusions.  The submitted residue data for mint tops are adequate.
The number and locations of crop field trials are in accordance with
OPPTS Guideline 860.1500, and the appropriate samples were collected at
the proposed PHI, following a fall application made at up to 2x the
maximum proposed application rate and subsequent spring application made
at up to 1.5x the maximum proposed application rate.  A residue decline
trial was not conducted, but none is requested because of the dormant
and early season applications, and long PHI.

The residue data for mint tops were entered into the Agency’s
tolerance spreadsheet as specified by the Guidance for Setting Pesticide
Tolerances Based on Field Trial Data SOP to determine appropriate
tolerance levels; see Attachment 2.  The recommended tolerance level was
adjusted by 1.5x, because of the exaggerated application rate.
Therefore, the recommended tolerance level for MCPB (including MCPA)
in/on peppermint, tops and spearmint, tops is 0.20 ppm (based on 0.18
ppm = 0.27 ppm/1.5).

860.1520 Processed Food and Feed

DER Reference List:	47218701.de2.doc

HED Memo:  S. Funk, 23-MAY-1996; DP#: 224170

IR-4 has submitted   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 a processing study with MCPB on
mint.  Samples used for processing were generated from two mint field
trials conducted in WA and WI during the 2002 growing season.  Mint tops
(leaves and stems) were harvested 38 or 40 days following the last of
two broadcast applications of the 2 lb ae/gal EC sodium salt formulation
of MPCB for a total rate of 1.74-1.80 lb ae/A (~1x the nominal field
trial rate).  The collected mint top samples were distilled into mint
oil.

Samples of mint tops and oil were analyzed for residues of free and
conjugated MCPB and MCPA using the GC/MS method entitled, “Gas
Chromatographic/Mass Spectrometric Method for Analysis of Chlorophenoxy
Acid Herbicides:  MCPB and MCPA in Peas” with minor modifications.
This method is similar to the method previously developed for the
analysis of MCPB and MCPA in peas (Memo, S. Funk, 23-MAY-1996; DP#:
224170).  The method was adequately validated prior to and in
conjunction with the analysis of mint tops and oil samples.  The LLMV
for both MCPB and MCPA was 0.05 ppm in mint tops and oil.  Samples of
mint tops and oil were stored frozen for up to 2.6-2.8 months prior to
analysis; adequate concurrent storage stability data are available to
support sample storage conditions and durations.

Samples of treated mint tops (raw agricultural commodity (RAC)) bore
average MCPB residues of 0.086 and 0.107 ppm.  Following distillation,
residues of MCPB were nonquantifiable (<0.05 ppm) in mint oil, reducing
0.5-0.6x.  Residues of MCPA were below the LLMV (<0.05 ppm) in/on both
treated mint tops and mint oil, therefore processing factors for MCPA
could not be calculated.

Combined residues of MCPB and MCPA do not appear to concentrate
(0.6x-0.7x processing factors) in mint oil distilled from treated mint
tops bearing quantifiable residues of MCPB; see Table 6.  The observed
processing factors are less than the theoretical concentration factor of
333x for mint oil (based on separation into components; OPPTS 860.1520,
Table 3).

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Table 6.	   Summary of Processing Factors for
MCPB.

RAC	Processed

Commodity	Processing Factor

MCPB	MCPA	Total

Mint tops	oil	0.5x, 0.6x	Not calculated (both RAC and oil <LLMV)	0.6x,
0.7x

Conclusions.  The available mint processing studies are adequate.
Following distillation, combined residues of MCPB and MCPA reduced on
average by 0.7x in mint oil.  A separate tolerance is not required for
residues in/on mint oil.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 860.1650 Submittal of Analytical Reference
Standards

Analytical standards for MCPB and MCPA are currently available in the
EPA National Pesticide Standards Repository with an expiration date of
8/23/09 for MCPB and 8/1/09 for MCPA (personal communication with Dallas
Wright, ACB, 1/2/08 and 1/9/08).  Analytical reference standards of MCPB
and MCPA must be replenished as requested by the Repository.  The
reference standards should be sent to the Analytical Chemistry Lab,
which is located at Fort Meade, to the attention of either Theresa Cole
or Frederic Siegelman at the following address:

	USEPA

	National Pesticide Standards Repository/Analytical Chemistry Branch/OPP

	701 Mapes Road

	Fort George G. Meade, MD  20755-5350

(Note that the mail will be returned if the extended zip code is not
used.)

860.1850/1900 Confined/Field Accumulation in Rotational Crops

HED Memo:  F. Fort, 09-MAR-2004; DP#: 197125

HED Memo:  F. Fort, 12-MAR-2008; DP#: 305068

Previously, the MCPB Task Force had submitted a request for a waiver of
the requirements for a confined accumulation in rotational crops study
for MCPB, based on the fact that MCPB has a very short half-life and
that MCPB soil residues would have gone through a minimum of 5
half-lives prior to planting another crop (3-4 months for peas).
Residues of MCPA, a degradation product of MCPB, would be more likely to
be present then residues of MCPB.  The MCPB Task Force suggested that
EPA, therefore, rely on the MCPA rotational crop study.

The Agency agreed that MCPA would more likely be found in soil and that
this requirement may be satisfied with a confined accumulation in
rotational crops study with MCPA since this compound is the major
metabolite for MCPB.  However, the study that the registrant referred to
was found to be deficient (Memo, F. Fort, 09-MAR-2004; DP#: 197125).  In
their waiver request, the MCPB Task Force stated that EPA’s primary
reason for not accepting the previous study (MRID 40961301) was that a
maximum rate of 0.75 lb ae/A was used, whereas labels included rates of
up to 10.75 lb ae/A.  The MCPB Task Force stated that all the labels
have either  been changed or are in the process of being changed so that
no more than 0.75 lb ae/A will be registered.  Thus, EPA’s objection
will no longer apply.  HED recommended that if the registrant decreases
the maximum use rate for MCPA to no more than 0.75 lb ae/A, HED has no
reservations with granting the waiver request (Memo, F. Fort,
12-MAR-2008; DP#: 305068).

The submitted MCPB mint crop field trial data support a maximum total
application rate of 1.8 lb ae/A, with a single fall application at up to
1 lb ae/A and a subsequent spring application at up to 0.8 lb ae/A.
Because this application rate is significantly higher than the
conditions HED recommended for previously (Memo, F. Fort, 12-MAR-2008;
DP#: 305068) when granting the MCPA confined rotational crop data
waiver, HED recommends that the MCPB Task Force submit a MCPB confined
rotational crop study.  HED recommends further that the confined
rotational crop study monitor for both MCPB and MCPA.

The need for field rotational crop studies and/or rotational crop
restrictions will be determined following the review of the outstanding
MCPB confined rotational crop study.  Until an acceptable study is
submitted, rotation should be limited to crops from which MCPA and MCPB
use is registered.

860.1550 Proposed Tolerances

IR-4 has proposed a tolerance expression in terms of the residues of
MCPB.  Currently, a permanent tolerance is established for residues of
MCPB per se in/on pea at 0.1 ppm (N) [40 CFR §180.318(a)].  The HED
Metabolism Committee (08-JUN-1995) has determined that the residues to
be regulated for both tolerance and risk assessment purposes in plant
commodities are free and conjugated MCPB and MCPA.  The petitioner is
requested to submit a revised Section F to specify the tolerance
expression in terms of the combined residues of MCPB and MCPA (free and
conjugated).

No tolerances are established for livestock commodities and livestock
tolerances are not addressed in this petition as the proposed use does
not include any new uses on crops having livestock feedstuffs.  SEQ
CHAPTER \h \r 1

Adequate field trial data are available to set a tolerance on mint tops;
the available data suggest that the proposed tolerance for mint leaves
is too high.  Based on the mint processing study, residues of MCPB and
MCPA do not appear to concentrate in oil; therefore, a separate
tolerance is not required for mint oil.

The tolerance proposed by the petitioner along with the HED’s
recommended tolerance are listed below in Table 7.    SEQ CHAPTER \h \r
1 The recommended tolerance level for mint tops (leaves and stems) in
the current petition was determined using recent Agency Guidance
(Guidance for Setting Pesticide Tolerances Based on Field Trial Data
SOP) and maximum likelihood estimation to impute censored values.  The
residue data used for the tolerance calculations and the supporting
spreadsheet outputs are presented in Attachment 2.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 There are no established or proposed Codex,
Canadian, or Mexican maximum residue limits (MRLs) for MCPB.

Table 7.    Tolerance Summary for MCPB.

Commodity	Proposed Tolerance (ppm)	Recommended Tolerance (ppm)	Comments;

Correct Commodity Definition

Mint tops (leaves and stems)	0.251	0.202	Separate tolerances should be
established for Peppermint, tops and Spearmint, tops

1   The petitioner indicated that the proposed tolerance is based on the
MRL Calculator.  In those cases where no detectable residues were found
(LLMV = 0.05 ppm), a value of 0.025 ppm was used by the petitioner to
calculate the MRL.

2   HED notes that the recommended tolerance level is based on the MRL
Calculator.  In those cases where no quantifiable residues were found
(total combined MCPB and MCPA LLMV = 0.10 ppm), maximum likelihood
estimation (MLE) procedures were needed to impute censored values.
Furthermore, the recommended tolerance level was divided by 1.5x,
because of the exaggerated application rate.  The unrounded tolerance
value and the appropriate rounding rule was applied to the revised
tolerance calculation.  Therefore, the recommended tolerance level for
MCPB (including MCPA) in/on peppermint, tops and spearmint, tops is 0.20
ppm (based on 0.18 ppm = 0.27 ppm/1.5).

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Attachments

Attachment 1:  International Residue Limit Status (IRLS) Sheet.

Attachment 2:  Tolerance Assessment Calculations.

Template Version September 2005

cc:  M. Metzger (RRB1)

RDI: G.F. Kramer (30-SEP-2008), RAB1 Chemists (26-MAR-2008)

S. Levy: S-10953: PY1:<PHONE_NUMBER>: 7509P: RAB1

Attachment 1:  International Residue Limit Status (IRLS) Sheet.

INTERNATIONAL RESIDUE LIMIT STATUS

Chemical Name: 4-(2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxy) butyric acid	Common Name:

MCPB	X Proposed tolerance

 Reevaluated tolerance

 Other	Date: 31-DEC-2007

Codex Status (Maximum Residue Limits)	U. S. Tolerances

X No Codex proposal step 6 or above

 No Codex proposal step 6 or above for the crops requested	Petition
Number:  PP#7E7257

DP#:  343743

Other Identifier:

Residue definition (step 8/CXL): N/A	Reviewer/Branch:  S. Levy/RAB1

	Residue definition:  MCPB [4-(2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxy) butyric acid]

Crop (s)	MRL (mg/kg)	Crop(s) 	Tolerance (ppm)

Mint tops (leaves and stems)	0.25

Li業獴映牯䌠湡摡ݡ楌業獴映牯䴠硥捩ݯ堇丠楌業獴

 No Limits for the crops requested	X No Limits

 No Limits for the crops requested

Residue definition:  N/A

	Residue definition:  N/A

Crop(s)	MRL (mg/kg)	Crop(s)	MRL (mg/kg)

	Notes/Special Instructions:  S.Funk, 01/02/2008.

Attachment 2:  Tolerance Assessment Calculations.

The dataset used to establish a tolerance for MCPB on mint tops
consisted of field trial data representing application rates of
1.71-1.81 lb ae/A (two broadcast applications, the first at 0.961-1.042
lb ae/A followed by a second at 0.745-0.789 lb ae/A) with a 38- to
40-day PHI.  As specified by the Guidance for Setting Pesticide
Tolerances Based on Field Trial Data SOP, the field trial PHIs are
within 25% of the minimum label PHI, but the field trial application
rates were 1.5-2x the maximum label application rate.  The residue
values used to calculate the tolerance are provided in Table I-1.
Because 4 of 10 field trial sample results were below the combined LLMV
(<0.10 ppm), MLE procedures were needed to impute censored values.

The MCPB-mint tops dataset was entered into the tolerance spreadsheet.
Visual inspection of the lognormal probability plot (Figure I-1)
provided in the spreadsheet indicates that the dataset is reasonably
lognormal.  The result from the approximate Shapiro-Francia test
statistic (Figure I-2) confirmed that the assumption of lognormality
should not be rejected.

萏֠萑褐葞֠葠褐摧漺ò

W

X

]

D

X

]

†

«

¬

]

b

¬

$

)

2

3

=

K

_

`

e

i

³

è

é

ô

õ

ö

h&

h&

 h

h+

h+

í

h+

ԀĤ␆ഁ׆Ā褐㄀Ĥ摧ܷÔ

 h

 h

 h

 h

 h

H*

 h

摧▦Â

}	å

␅؁Ĥ萮Z萯Z摧嚳	ԀĤ␆㄁Ĥ摧䴈F

hN

hN

hN

摧゙

 h

:on.  Therefore, the recommended tolerance level for MCPB (including
MCPA) in/on peppermint, tops and spearmint, tops is 0.20 ppm (based on
0.18 ppm = 0.27 ppm/1.5).

Table I-1.	Residue data used to calculate tolerance for MCPB on mint
tops.

Regulator:	EPA

Chemical:	MCPB

Crop:	Mint tops (MLE)

PHI:	38-40 Days

App. Rate:	1.706-1.807 lb ae/A

Submitter:	IR-4

MRID Citation:	MRID 47218701

	Combined Residues of MCPB and MCPA (ppm)

	0.120

	0.151

	0.068

	0.079

	0.086

	0.093

	0.145

	0.169

	0.150

	0.184

Figure I-   SEQ Figure_II- \* ARABIC  1 .  Lognormal probability plot of
MCPB field trial data for mint tops.

Figure I- 2.   Tolerance spreadsheet summary of MCPB field trial data
for mint tops.

Page   PAGE  1  of   NUMPAGES  18

MCPB	Summary of Analytical Chemistry and Residue Data	DP#:  349646


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 92 (Tuesday, May 12, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 28135]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10080]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Request To Release Airport Property for Land Disposal
at the Ankeny Regional Airport (IKV), Ankeny, Iowa

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of request to rule on release of airport property for
land disposal.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the
release of land at the Ankeny Regional Airport (IKV), Ankeny, Iowa.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 11, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to
the FAA at the following address: Amy J. Walter, Airports Land
Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, ACE-
620G, 901 Locust, Room 364, Kansas City, MO 64106.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to: Paul Moritz, Polk County Aviation Authority,
Ankeny City Hall, 410 West 1st Street, Ankeny, Iowa 50039, (515) 965-
6420.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy J. Walter, Airports Land
Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, ACE-
620G, 901 Locust, Room 364, Kansas City, MO 64106,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The request to release property may be reviewed, by
appointment, in person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the
request to release one tract of land consisting of approximately 16.06
acres of airport property at the Ankeny Regional Airport (IKV) under
the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2). On February 12, 2020, the
Attorney for the Polk County Aviation Authority requested a release
from the FAA to sell a tract of land, 16.06 acres. Buyer, Van Houweling
Property LLC, will use the land for development. On May 4, 2020, the
FAA determined that the request to release property at the Ankeny
Regional Airport (IKV) submitted by the Sponsor meets the procedural
requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration and the release of
the property does not and will not impact future aviation needs at the
airport. The FAA may approve the request, in whole or in part, no
sooner than thirty days after the publication of this notice.
    The following is a brief overview of the request:
    The Ankeny Regional Airport (IKV) is proposing the release of
airport property containing 16.06 acres, more or less. The release of
land is necessary to comply with Federal Aviation Administration Grant
Assurances that do not allow federally acquired airport property to be
used for non-aviation purposes. The sale of the subject property will
result in the land at the Ankeny Regional Airport (IKV) being changed
from aeronautical to non-aeronautical use and release the lands from
the conditions of the Airport Improvement Program Grant Agreement Grant
Assurances in order to dispose of the land. In accordance with 49
U.S.C. 47107(c)(2)(B)(i) and (iii), the airport will receive fair
market value for the property, which will be subsequently reinvested in
another eligible airport improvement project for general aviation use.
    Any person may inspect, by appointment, the request in person at
the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In
addition, any person may, upon appointment and request, inspect the
application, notice and other documents determined by the FAA to be
related to the application in person at the Ankeny City Hall.

    Issued in Kansas City, MO on May 4, 2020.
James A. Johnson,
Director, FAA Central Region, Airports Division.
[FR Doc. 2020-10080 Filed 5-11-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 164 (Tuesday, August 25, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51548-51550]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20990]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PF15-25-000]

Freeport LNG Development, L.P.; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Planned Freeport LNG Train 4 Project
and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Freeport LNG Train 4 Project
involving construction and operation of facilities by Freeport LNG
Development, L.P. (Freeport LNG) in Brazoria, Texas. The Commission
will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether
the planned project is in the public interest.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies on the project. You can make a difference by providing us with
your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments
should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable
alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts.
Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they
need to evaluate in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and
properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission
receives them in Washington, DC on or before September 18, 2015.
    If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the
opening of this docket on June 3, 2015, you will need to file those
comments in Docket No. PF15-25-000 to ensure they are considered as
part of this proceeding.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this planned
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' is available for
viewing on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). This fact sheet addresses
a number of typically asked questions, including how to participate in
the Commission's proceedings.

Public Participation

    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at
(202) 502-8258 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please carefully follow these
instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief,
text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a
variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' If you are filing a comment on a particular project,
please select ``Comment on a Filing'' as the filing type; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number
(PF15-25-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A,
Washington, DC 20426.

Summary of the Planned Project

    Freeport LNG intends to add a fourth liquefaction unit to Freeport
LNG's natural gas liquefaction facilities on Quintana Island in
Brazoria County, Texas. The Freeport LNG Train 4 Project (Train 4
Project) would be located west and adjacent to the facilities
authorized and currently under construction for the Phase II
Modification Project (Docket No. CP12-29-000) and Liquefaction Project
(Docket No. CP12-509-000), which comprises three liquefaction trains
and related facilities. Train 4 would be within the existing Freeport
LNG site boundary.
    Freeport LNG indicates that the Train 4 Project would provide
additional liquefaction capacity of approximately 5.1 million metric
tonnes per annum (mtpa) of LNG for export, which equates to a natural
gas throughput capacity of approximately 0.72 billion cubic feet per
day (Bcf/d). This would enable Freeport LNG to respond favorably and
proactively to short- and longer-term fluctuations in domestic and
global gas markets.
    The Freeport LNG Train 4 Project would consist of the following
facilities:
     A propane pre-cooled mixed refrigerant liquefaction unit;
     a feed gas receiving and metering station;
     utility, auxiliary, and control systems, including common
utilities, spill containment systems, fire and safety systems, one
electric substation, security systems, and plant roads.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in Appendix
1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    The Train 4 Project liquefaction facilities would be entirely
within the Freeport LNG's existing site boundary on Quintana Island in
Brazoria County, Texas. Construction of the liquefaction facilities
would be within areas approved as temporary work space for the Phase II
Modification Project and Liquefaction Project. Construction of the
Train 4 Project liquefaction facilities is expected to affect about 87
acres of land.
    Following construction, Freeport LNG would maintain about 21 acres
for permanent operation of the Train 4 Project's facilities; the
remaining acreage would be restored and revert to former uses.

Non-jurisdictional Facilities

    The facility will receive natural gas from a 2,000-foot-long
intrastate natural gas pipeline (feed gas pipeline) and power from a
five-mile-long electric line

to be provided by CenterPoint Energy. These facilities would extend
beyond the existing site boundary. Although FERC doesn't have the
regulatory authority to modify or deny the construction of the above-
described facilities, we will disclose available information regarding
the construction impacts in the cumulative impacts section of our EA.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the authorization of
natural gas facilities under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act. NEPA
also requires us \2\ to discover and address concerns the public may
have about proposals. This process is referred to as scoping. The main
goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the
important environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests
public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. We
will consider all comments filed during the preparation of the EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the planned project under these
general headings:
     Geology and soils;
     land use;
     water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
     cultural resources;
     vegetation and wildlife, including endangered and
threatened species;
     socioeconomics;
     visual impacts;
     air quality and noise;
     public safety; and
     cumulative impacts.
    We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the planned project
or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen
or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    Although no formal application has been filed, we have already
initiated our NEPA review under the Commission's pre-filing process.
The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement
of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before
the FERC receives an application. As part of our pre-filing review, we
have begun to contact some federal and state agencies to discuss their
involvement in the scoping process and the preparation of the EA.
    The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA
will be available in the public record through eLibrary. If we publish
and distribute the EA to the public there will be an allotted comment
period. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make our
recommendations to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to
consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the
instructions in the Public Participation section, beginning on page 2.
    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law
and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues
related to this project to formally cooperate with us in the
preparation of the EA.\3\ Agencies that would like to request
cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing
comments provided under the Public Participation section of this
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation
with the Texas State Historic Preservation Office, and to solicit their
views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes,
and the public on the project's potential effects on historic
properties.\4\ We will define the project-specific Area of Potential
Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPO as the project develops. On
natural gas facility projects, the APE at a minimum encompasses all
areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include construction
right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor stations, and
access roads). Our EA for this project will document our findings on
the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status of
consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have already identified several issues that we think deserve
attention based on a preliminary review of the planned facilities and
the environmental information provided by Freeport LNG. This
preliminary list of issues may change based on your comments and our
analysis.

 visual impacts
 noise and air emissions
 traffic
 cumulative impacts

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related
to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and
government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the
planned project.
    If we publish and distribute the EA, copies of the EA will be sent
to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you
would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD
version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please
return the attached Information Request (Appendix 2).

Becoming an Intervenor

    Once Freeport LNG files its application with the Commission, you
may want to become an ``intervenor,'' which is an official party to the
Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the
process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard
by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling.
An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a
request to intervene. Motions to intervene are more fully described at
http://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp. Instructions
for becoming an intervenor are in the ``Document-less Intervention
Guide'' under the ``e-filing'' link on the Commission's Web site.
Please note that the Commission will not accept requests for intervenor
status at this time. You must wait until the Commission

receives a formal application for the project.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., PF15-
25). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: August 19, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-20990 Filed 8-24-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 35)]
[Notices]
[Page 8249-8250]
[DOCID:fr24fe09-61]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER02-2001-010; Docket No. ER06-1152-000; Docket No. ER07-
1247-000]

Order on Intent To Revoke Market-Based Rate Authority

February 19, 2009.
    Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, Acting Chairman; Suedeen G.
Kelly, Marc Spitzer, and Philip D. Moeller.
    Electric Quarterly Reports: Docket No. ER02-2001-010.
    Celeren Corporation: Docket No. ER06-1152-000.
    FC Energy Services Company, LLC: Docket No. ER07-1247-000.
    1. Section 205 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824d
(2006), and 18 CFR part 35 (2008), require, among other things, that
all rates, terms, and conditions of jurisdictional services be filed
with the Commission. In Order No. 2001, the Commission revised its
public utility filing requirements and established a requirement for
public utilities, including power marketers, to file Electric Quarterly
Reports summarizing the contractual terms and conditions in their
agreements for all jurisdictional services (including market-based
power sales, cost-based power sales, and transmission service) and
providing transaction information (including rates) for short-term and
long-term power sales during the most recent calendar quarter.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Revised Public Utility Filing Requirements, Order No. 2001,
FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,127, Reh'g Denied, Order No. 2001-A, 100
FERC ] 61,074, Reconsideration and Clarification Denied, Order No.
2001-B, 100 FERC ] 61,342, Order Directing Filings, Order No. 2001-
C, 101 FERC ] 61,314 (2002) Order Directing Filings, Order No. 2001-
D, 102 FERC ] 61,334 (2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Commission staff's review of the Electric Quarterly Report
submittals indicates that two utilities with authority to sell electric
power at market-based rates have failed to file their Electric
Quarterly Reports. This order notifies these public utilities that
their market-based rate authorizations will be revoked unless they
comply with the Commission's requirements within 15 days of the date of
issuance of this order.
    3. In Order No. 2001, the Commission stated that,

[i]f a public utility fails to file a[n] Electric Quarterly Report
(without an appropriate request for extension), or fails to report
an agreement in a report, that public utility may forfeit its
market-based rate authority and may be required to file a new
application for market-based rate authority if it wishes to resume
making sales at market-based rates.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Order No. 2001 at P 222.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    4. The Commission further stated that,

[o]nce this rule becomes effective, the requirement to comply with
this rule will supersede the conditions in public utilities' market-
based rate authorizations, and failure to comply with the
requirements of this rule will subject public utilities to the same
consequences they would face for not satisfying the conditions in
their rate authorizations, including possible revocation of their
authority to make wholesale power sales at market-based rates.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Id. P 223.

    5. Pursuant to these requirements, the Commission has revoked the
market-based rate tariffs of several market-based rate sellers that
failed to submit their Electric Quarterly Reports.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., Electric Quarterly Reports, 73 FR 31,460 (June 2,
2008); Electric Quarterly Reports, 115 FERC ] 61,073 (2006),
Electric Quarterly Reports, 114 FERC ] 61,171 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. As noted above, Commission staff's review of the Electric
Quarterly Report submittals identified two public utilities with
authority to sell power at market-based rates that failed to file
Electric Quarterly Reports through the third and fourth quarters of
2008. Commission staff contacted these entities to remind them of their
regulatory obligations.\5\ None of the public utilities listed in the
caption of this order has met those obligations.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Celeren Corporation, Docket No. ER06-1152-000 (December
19, 2008) (unpublished letter order); FC Energy Services Company,
LLC, Docket No. ER07-1247-000 (December 19, 2008) (unpublished
letter order).
    \6\ According to the Commission's records, the companies subject
to this order last filed their Electric Quarterly Reports for the
2nd quarter of 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, this order notifies these public utilities that their
market-based rate authorizations will be revoked unless they comply
with the Commission's requirements within 15 days of the issuance of
this order.
    7. In the event that any of the above-captioned market-based rate
sellers has already filed its Electric Quarterly Report in compliance
with the Commission's requirements, its inclusion herein is
inadvertent. Such market-based rate seller is directed, within 15 days
of the date of issuance of this order, to make a filing with the
Commission identifying itself and providing details about its prior
filings that establish that it complied with the Commission's Electric
Quarterly Report filing requirements.
    8. If any of the above-captioned market-based rate sellers do not
wish to continue having market-based rate authority, they may file a
notice of cancellation with the Commission pursuant to section 205 of
the FPA to cancel their market-based rate tariff.
    The Commission Orders:
    (A) Within 15 days of the date of issuance of this order, each
public utility listed in the caption of this order shall file with the
Commission all delinquent Electric Quarterly Reports. If a public
utility fails to make this filing, the Commission will revoke that
public utility's authority to sell power at market-based rates and will
terminate its electric market-based rate tariff. The Secretary is
hereby directed, upon expiration of the filing deadline in this order,
to promptly issue a notice, effective on the date of issuance, listing
the public utilities whose tariffs have

been revoked for failure to comply with the requirements of this order
and the Commission's Electric Quarterly Report filing requirements.
    (B) The Secretary is hereby directed to publish this order in the
Federal Register.

    By the Commission. Commissioner Kelliher is not participating.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-3931 Filed 2-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they saved my life. I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

This product has helped me and my family stop smoking cigarettes and other tobacco products which contain carcinogens. After losing loved ones to cancer, I recognize this opportunity to save lives.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.