products: Ridomil Gold® SL (EPA Reg. No. 100-1202), Ridomil Gold® EC
(EPA Reg. No. 100-801), and Ridomil Gold® Copper (EPA Reg. No.
100-804).

b	Exposure Science Advisory Council Policy No. 9.1.

c	Unit Exposures based on PHED Version 1.1.

d	Short-Term Inhalation Dose (mg/kg/day) = daily unit exposure (mg/lb
ai)  x application rate (lb ai/acre) x acres treated / body weight (60
kg).  Body weight = 60 kg due to the maternal toxicity in a
developmental study.

e	Intermediate-Term Inhalation Dose (mg/kg/day) = daily unit exposure
(mg/lb ai)  x application rate (lb ai/acre) x acres treated / body
weight (70 kg).

f	Short-Term Inhalation MOE = NOAEL (50 mg/kg/day) / inhalation daily
dose (mg/kg/day).  Level of concern = 100.

g	Intermediate-Term Inhalation MOE = NOAEL (7.4 mg/kg/day) / inhalation
daily dose (mg/kg/day).  Level of concern = 100.

The minimum level of PPE for handlers is based on acute toxicity for the
end-use products.  RD is responsible for ensuring that PPE listed on the
label is in compliance with WPS.

  tc \l2 "9.1	Occupational Handler

9.2	Occupational Postapplication

 tc \l2 "9.2	Occupational Postapplication

Occupational postapplication exposure can occur via the dermal and/or
inhalation route.  Based on the Agency's current practices, a
quantitative occupational postapplication inhalation exposure assessment
was not performed for mefenoxam at this time.  However, there are
multiple potential sources of postapplication inhalation exposure to
individuals performing postapplication activities in previously treated
fields.  These potential sources include volatilization of pesticides
and resuspension of dusts and/or particulates that contain pesticides.
The Agency sought expert advice and input on issues related to
volatilization of pesticides from its Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) in December 2009.
The Agency received the SAP’s final report on March 2, 2010 (
HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/SAP/meetings/2009/120109meeting.html"
http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/SAP/meetings/2009/120109meeting.html ) and is
in the process of evaluating the SAP report as well as available
postapplication inhalation exposure data generated by the Agricultural
Reentry Task Force.  The Agency may, as appropriate, develop policies
and procedures to identify the need for and, subsequently, the way to
incorporate occupational postapplication inhalation exposure into the
Agency's risk assessments.  If new policies or procedures are put into
place, the Agency may revisit the need for a quantitative occupational
postapplication inhalation exposure assessment for mefenoxam.

Dermal exposure during postapplication activities is not considered
because applicable dermal endpoints were not identified.  Therefore, a
risk assessment for postapplication activities with mefenoxam-treated
crops is not necessary.  However, because primary eye irritation testing
has placed mefenoxam in Toxicity Category I, an interim 48-hour
restricted entry interval (REI) is required under the Worker Protection
Standard.Appendix A:	Toxicity Profile   TC \l1 "Appendix A:  Toxicity
Profile

Table A.1.  Summary for Toxicology Data Requirements for Mefenoxam and
Metalaxyl.

Test	Technical

	Required	Satisfied

870.1100    Acute Oral Toxicity

870.1200    Acute Dermal Toxicity

870.1300    Acute Inhalation Toxicity

870.2400    Primary Eye Irritation

870.2500    Primary Dermal Irritation

870.2600    Dermal Sensitization		yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes	yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

870.3100    Oral Subchronic (rodent)

870.3150    Oral Subchronic (nonrodent)

870.3200    21-Day Dermal

870.3465    90-Day Inhalation		Yes

Yes

Yes

No

	Yes

Yes

Yes

No

870.3700a  Developmental Toxicity (rodent)

870.3700b  Developmental Toxicity (nonrodent)

870.3800    Reproduction		Yes

Yes

Yes	Yes

Yes

Yes

870.4100a  Chronic Toxicity (rodent)

870.4100b  Chronic Toxicity (nonrodent)

870.4200a  Oncogenicity (rat)

870.4200b  Oncogenicity (mouse)

870.4300    Chronic/Oncogenicity		Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes	Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

870.5100    Mutagenicity—Gene Mutation - bacterial

870.5300    Mutagenicity—Gene Mutation - mammalian

870.5xxx    Mutagenicity—Structural Chromosomal Aberrations

870.5xxx    Mutagenicity—Other Genotoxic Effects		Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes	Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

870.6100a  Acute Delayed Neurotox. (hen)

870.6100b  90-Day Neurotoxicity (hen)

870.6200a  Acute Neurotox. Screening Battery (rat)

870.6200b  90-Day Neuro. Screening Battery (rat)

870.6300    Develop. Neuro		No

No

Yes

Yes

No	N/A

N/A

No

No

NA

870.7485    General Metabolism

870.7600    Dermal Penetration		Yes

No	Yes

Yes

870.7800    Immunotoxicity screening 	Yes	No

Table A.2.  Mefenoxam and Metalaxyl Toxicity Profile.

Guideline No.	Study Type	MRID No. (Year)/ Classification/Doses	Results

870.3100	28 Day oral toxicity—rats (gavage)	43800390 Mefenoxam or
Metalaxyl

Acceptable/Non-guideline

1, 10, 50, 150, 300 mg/kg/day 	Mefenoxam

NOAEL= 300 mg/k/day (HTD)a.

LOAEL could not be established.

Metalaxyl

NOAEL = 50 mg/kg/day

LOAEL = 150 mg/kg/day based on minimal extramedullary hematopoeisis of
the spleen and hepatocellulary hypertrophy.

	28-Day oral toxicity—rats

(Dietary)	42800391 Mefenoxam

Acceptable/Non-guideline

0, 500, 3000, & 6000 ppm (M: 0, 42.68, 257.1, or  534.2 mg/kg/day. F: 0,
47.47, 363.3, or  649.8 mg/kg/day)	NOAEL= 6000 ppm (M: 534.2 mg/kg/day;
F:649.8 mg/kg/day) ( HTD)

LOAEL could not be established.

870.3100	90-Day oral—rats	43823202 Mefenoxam

Acceptable

0, 25, 50, 250, 625, 0r 1250 ppm (M: 0, 1.72, 3.50, 16.8, 44.8, or 90.5
mg/kg/day.  F: 0, 1.86, 3.71, 17.9, 49.2, or 95.0 mg/kg/day)	NOAEL =
44.8 mg/kg/day;

LOAEL = 90.5 mg/kg/day based on increased hepatocyte hypertrophy,
increased lymphocytic infiltration of liver.

00084110  Metalaxyl

0, 50, 250, or 1250 ppm (0, 3.4, 17,  or 83 mg/kg/day)	NOAEL =17
mg/kg/day

LOAEL= 83 mg/kg/day based on slightly reduced food consumption in males
and minimally increased liver cell hypertrophy

870.3150	90-Day dietary feeding—dogs

	43800392 Mefenoxam

Acceptable

0, 50, 125, 250, 1250 ppm (M:  0, 1.57, 4..07, 7.25, 38.6 mg/kg/day.

F: 0, 1.56, 4.33, 7.93, 39.46 mg/kg/day)	3 -Month

NOAEL = 7.25 mg/kg/day

LOAEL= 38.6 mg/kg/day based on slightly increased alk. phos and
increased abs and rel liver weights in both sexes.

870.3200	21-Day dermal toxicity—rabbits	00072394  Metalaxyl

Acceptable

0, 10, 100, 1000 mg/kg/day	No dermal systemic toxicity was found.

NOAEL = 1000 mg/kg/day (HTD)

870.3700	Developmental toxicity—rats	43800393  Mefenoxam

Acceptable/Guideline

0, 10, 50, 250 mg/kg/day	Maternal

NOAEL = 50 mg/kg/day;

LOAEL = 250 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight gains and food
consumption (marginal effects).

Developmental

NOAEL = 250 mg/kg/day;

LOAEL > 250 mg/kg/day.

	Developmental toxicity—rats	00144423  (1985) Metalaxyl

Acceptable

50, 250, 400 mg/kg/day	Maternal

NOAEL = 50 mg/kg/day;

LOAEL = 250 mg/kg/day based on clinical signs (ataxia, body tremors,
reduce activity and righting reflex) including post-dose convulsions.

Developmental

NOAEL = 250 mg/kg/day;

LOAEL = 400 mg/kg/day based on

increased incidence of skeletal variations

	Developmental toxicity—rabbits	00144371, 00144372, 00148866,
00154938;  (1984);  Metalaxyl

Acceptable

0, 30, 150, 300 mg/kg/day	Maternal

NOAEL = 150 mg/kg/day;

LOAEL = 300 mg/kg/day based on decreased

body weight gain.

Developmental

 NOAEL = 300 mg/kg/day (HTD)

870.3800	2-Generation reproduction—

rats	00071600  (1980)  Metalaxyl

Acceptable

0, 50, 250, 1250 ppm (0, 2.5, 12.5, 62.5 mg/kg/day)	Parental/Systemic

NOAEL = 62.5 mg/kg/day (M), 12.5 mg/kg/day (F)

LOAEL > 62.5 mg/kg/day (M), = 62.5 mg/kg/day (F) based on increased
relative liver weights

Reproductive

NOAEL = 62.5 mg/kg/day;

LOAEL > 62.5 mg/kg/day.

Offspring

NOAEL = 12.5 mg/kg/day;

LOAEL = 62.5 mg/kg/day based on histopathological changes in the livers
of female pups.

	6-Month dietary Feeding—Dog

	00071598 (1981) Metalaxyl

Acceptable

0, 25, 250, 1000 ppm

(M: 0, 1.57, 7.80, 30.63 mg/kg/day. F: 0, 1.71, 7.41, 32.36 mg/kg/day)
NOAEL = 7.80 mg/kg/day (M), 7.41 mg/kg/day (F)

 LOAEL = 30.63 mg/kg/day (M), 32.36 mg/kg/day (F) based on increased
alkaline phosphatase, increased relative and absolute liver weights.

870.4100

870.4200	Combined chronic/ Oncogenicity study—rats (2-yr)	00098481,
00132009, 00150185

(1981) Metalaxyl

Acceptable/guideline

0, 50, 250, 1250 ppm

(M: 1.88, 9.43, 46.6 mg/kg/day. F: 0, 2.2, 9.95, 55.0 mg/kg/day)	NOAEL =
M: 9.43 mg/kg/day (M), 9.95 mg/kg/day (F)

LOAEL = 46.6 mg/kg/day (M), 55.0 mg/kg/day (F) based on increased serum
alanine amino-transferase and serum aspartate amino-transferase,
increased periacinar vacuolation of hepatocytes, increased absolute and
relative liver weights. No evidence of carcinogenicity

870.4200	Oncogenicity Study—mice (80 wk)

	00103354 (1981) Metalazxyl

Acceptable/Guideline

0, 50, 250, 1250 ppm

(M:0, 5.00, 24.85, 128.89 mg/kg/day. F: 0, 5.68, 29.59, 148.16
mg/kg/day)	NOAEL = 24.85 mg/kg/day (M), 29.59 mg/kg/day (F)

LOAEL = 128.89 mg/kg/day (M), 148.16 mg/kg/day (F) based on increased
fatty infiltration of the liver. No evidence of carcinogenicity

870.5100	Bacterial reverse gene mutation assay

	43800394  Mefenoxam

Acceptable

20.58, 61.73, 185.19, 555.6, 1667, 5000 µg/plate	Negative

	Bacterial reverse gene mutation assay	00084113, 00154301, 00154302

Metalaxyl

Acceptable

25-2025 µg/plate, 20-5000 µg/plate, 10-5000 µg/plate 	Negative

870.5300	Mouse lymphoma gene mutation assay	00103362, 00154309 Metalaxyl

Acceptable

0.125-1.0 mg/ml w/o S9 0.0625/0.5 ml\g/ml w/S9	Negative

870.5375	In-vitro mammalian cell assay (CHO cell culture)	43800395
Mefenoxam  Acceptable

15.86 -2,030 µg/ml	Negative

	Chromosome aberration (CHOcells)	43800404 Mefenoxam or its
intermediate, CA 2331 A

Acceptable

1000 µg/ml mefenoxam spiked with 1, 10, 100, 1000, 2000 pp, CA 2331
Mefenoxam spike with CA 2331 A was positive at 10 ppm or greater CA 2331
A

870.5385	In vivo cytogeneticx in hamsters	00103361, 00154307  Metalaxyl

Acceptable

0, 595, 1190, 2380 mg/kg 	Negative

870.7485	Metabolism Study—Rats

	41664501  Metalaxyl

Acceptabl e

Low dose 1 mg/kg; high dose 200 mg/kg	Metalaxyl was readily absorbed ,
extensively metabobolized. 70-80% of the administered dose was
eliminated within 24 hours. For  females urinary elimination was the
major route of elimination, while fecal route was for males. Hydrolysis
of the ether and ester bonds was shown to be a significant metabolic
pathway.

870.7600	Dermal Penetration—Rats	001614202 Metalaxyl

Acceptable

1 or 10 mg/kg	30% of the applied dose was absorbed within 8 hrs. 70-80%
of the applied dose was eliminated within 72 hours. The elimination t1/2
36 & 49 hours for males and 42 and 44 hrs for 1 & 10 mg/kg,
respectively.

	Dermal penetration study—Rats	45085901 Mefenoxam (formulation as
Ridomil Gold EC (A-9408))

Acceptable

0.0094 or 4.7 mg/cm2	% absorbed were 24.5, 35.3, 34.8 for the low dose
and 3.0, 9.3, 16.5 for 8 hrs of exposure time. A value of 35% should be
used as a dermal absorption factor (HIARC Report. 5/17/2000).

a	In this 28-day toxicity study, the test animals were administered
mefenoxam by gavage;

2-hours after the first dose, the animals at 150 and 300 mg/kg dose
group showed clinical signs (hypoactivity and prostration).  However,
these signs were not repeated during the study, and the relevance of
this observation could not be determined.

b	In the developmental range-finding study, 10-1000 mg/kg metalaxyl were
used.  At >500 mg/kg level, treatment-related clinical signs such as
loss of righting reflex and hindlimb dysfunction were reported.

Table A.2.  Acute Toxicity for Mefenoxam.

Guideline

No.	Study Type	MRID #(S)	Results	Toxicity Category

81-1	Acute Oral	43800383	LD50(M)=1671 (1380-2024) mg/kg

LD50(F)=490 (360-666) mg/kg

LD50(both)=1269 (737-2187) mg/kg	II

81-2	Acute Dermal	43800384	LD50(M) > 2000 mg/kg

LD50(F) > 2000 mg/kg	III

81-3	Acute Inhalation	43800385	LC50(M) > 2.29 mg/L

LC50(F) > 2.29 mg/L	IV

81-4	Primary Eye  Irritation	43800386	severe to corrosive ocular
irritant	I

81-5	Primary Skin Irritation	43800387	slight dermal irritant	IV

81-6	Dermal Sensitization	43800388

43800389	maximization test - not a sensitizer

Buehler test - not a sensitizer	NA

Appendix B:	International Residue Limit Status Sheet   TC \l1 "Appendix
B:  International Residue Limit Status Sheet

INTERNATIONAL RESIDUE LIMIT STATUS

Chemical Name: methyl
N-(2,6-dimethylphenyl)-N-(methoxyacetyl)-D-alaninate	Common Name:

mefenoxam

(metalaxyl-M)	( Proposed tolerance

( Reevaluated tolerance

X Other - Recommended	Date: 07/28/2010

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

(No Codex proposal step 6 or above

(No Codex proposal step 6 or above for the crops requested	Petition
Number: PP#9E7591

DP Barcode: D371307

Other Identifier:

Residue definition (step 8/CXL): metalaxyl (plant); sum of metalaxyl and
metabolites containing the 2,6-dimethylaniline moiety, expressed as
metalaxyl (livestock).

Metalaxyl-M MRLs are at Step 6, pending resolution of the status of
metalaxyl CXLs. 	Reviewer/Branch: RAB4 – Nancy Dodd

	Residue definition: methyl
N-(2,6-dimethylphenyl)-N-(methoxyacetyl)-DL-alaninate

Crop (s)	MRL (mg/kg) (Step 6)	Crop(s) 	Tolerance (ppm)

Caneberry subgroup 13-07A	0.70

Bean, snap, succulent	0.20

Spinach	0.1 (existing CXL 2 for metalaxyl)	Spinach	Remains at 10

Bushberry subgroup 13-07B	2.0

Lingonberry	Remove

Onion, bulb	0.03 (existing CXL 2 for metalaxyl)	Onion, bulb, subgroup
3-07A	3.0

Onion, green, subgroup 3-07B	10

Limits for Canada	Limits for Mexico1

X No Limits (metalaxyl MRLs apply)

( No Limits for the crops requested	X No Limits

(No Limits for the crops requested

Residue definition: Residues of the resolved isomer metalaxyl-M are
covered by MRLs established for metalaxyl, the unresolved isomeric
mixture.

N-(2,6-dimethylphenyl)-N-(methoxyacetyl)-DL-alanine methyl ester,
including metabolites that can be converted to the 2,6-dimethylaniline
moiety, each expressed as metalaxyl equivalents

The following are metalaxyl MRLs:	Residue definition: N/A

A 2004 listing gives numerous crops for both metalaxyl and metalaxyl-M,
but without tolerance values.

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

Raspberry	0.2

Bean	0.2

Spinach	10

Blueberry	2

Onion, bulb	3.0

Onion, green	10

Notes/Special Instructions: S. Funk, 03/01/2010.

1 Mexico adopts Codex MRLs or US tolerances for its export purposes.

Appendix C:	Chemical Structures   TC \l1 "Appendix C:  Chemical
Structures

Table C.  Chemical Nomenclature and Structure of Metalaxyl/Mefenoxam and
Its Metabolites.

Parent and 2,6-DMA (2,6-dimethylaniline) Metabolites

Metalaxyl/Mefenoxam

CGA-48988/CGA-329351

 	CGA-62826

 	CGA-37734

CGA-67866

 	CGA-67867

 	CGA-67869

CGA-67868

 	CGA-107955

 	CGA-79353

CGA-78532

 	CGA-68124

 	CGA-68125

N-decanoic acid ester of

CGA-67869

HMMA (2-hydroxymethyl-6-methylaniline) Metabolites

CGA-94689

 	Fatty acid conjugates of P1/P2

 	P0

P1/P2

 	P4

 	N1a aglycone; benzyl alcohol of CGA-67868

HMMA (2-hydroxymethyl-6-methylaniline) Metabolites

CGA-94689

 	Fatty acid conjugates of P1/P2

 	P0

P1/P2

 	P4

 	N1a aglycone; benzyl alcohol of CGA-67868

Benzoic Acid Metabolites

CGA-108905

 	CGA-108906

	Ring OH Metabolites

CGA-100255

 	CGA-119857

 	N1b aglycone; phenyl ring hydroxy of CGA-67868

Appendix D:	Rationale for Immunotoxicity Data Requirement   TC \l2
"Appendix D: Rationale for Toxicity Data Requirement

Guideline Number: 870.7800

Study Title:  Immunotoxicity

Rationale for Requiring the Data

This is a new data requirement under 40 CFR Part 158 as a part of the
data requirements for registration of a pesticide (food and non-food
uses).

The Immunotoxicity Test Guideline (OPPTS 870.7800) prescribes functional
immunotoxicity testing and is designed to evaluate the potential of a
repeated chemical exposure to produce adverse effects (i.e. suppression)
on the immune system. Immunosuppression is a deficit in the ability of
the immune system to respond to a challenge of bacterial or viral
infections such as tuberculosis (TB), Severe Acquired Respiratory
Syndrome (SARS), or neoplasia.  Because the immune system is highly
complex, studies assessing functional immunotoxic endpoints are helpful
in fully characterizing a pesticide’s potential immunotoxicity.  These
data will be used in combination with data from hematology, lymphoid
organ weights, and histopathology in routine chronic or subchronic
toxicity studies to characterize potential immunotoxic effects.

Practical Utility of the Data

How will the data be used?

These animal studies can be used to select endpoints and doses for use
in risk assessment of all exposure scenarios and are considered a
primary data source for reliable reference dose calculation. For
example, animal studies have demonstrated that immunotoxicity in rodents
is one of the more sensitive manifestations of TCDD
(2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin) among developmental, reproductive,
and endocrinologic toxicities.  Additionally, the EPA has established an
oral reference dose (RfD) for tributyltin oxide (TBTO) based on observed
immunotoxicity in animal studies (IRIS, 1997).

How could the data impact the Agency's future decision-making?

If the immunotoxicity study shows that the test material poses either a
greater or a diminished risk than that given in the interim decision’s
conclusion, the risk assessments for the test material may need to be
revised to reflect the magnitude of potential risk derived from the new
data.

If the Agency does not have this data, a 10X database uncertainty factor
may be applied for conducting a risk assessment from the available
studies.

Appendix E:	Rationale for Acute and Subchronic Toxicity Data
Requirement  TC \l2 "Appendix E: Rationale for Toxicity Data Requirement

Guideline Number: 870.6200

Study Title:  Neurotoxicity Battery (Acute and Subchronic Study)

Rationale for Requiring the Data

This is a new data requirement under 40 CFR Part 158 as a part of the
data requirements for registration of a pesticide (food and non-food
uses).

The Neurotoxicity Screening Battery (OPPTS 870.6200) is designed to
evaluate the potential adverse effects on the nervous system from
exposure to pesticide chemicals.  The Agency believes that the guideline
studies are inadequate in their assessment of behavioral effects and do
not use optimal methods to evaluate the potential toxicity to the
nervous tissue structure and function. To detect and characterize these
potential effects more fully, a battery of more sensitive testing is
required. The objective of this neurotoxicity battery testing is to
evaluate the incidence and severity of the functional and/or behavioral
effects, the level of motor activity, and the histopathology of the
nervous system. The acute neurotoxicity study is required to detect
possible effects resulting from a single exposure. The subchronic
neurotoxicity study is intended to detect possible effects resulting
from repeated or long-term exposures.

Practical Utility of the Data

How will the data be used?

␃༁ꪄ⸙⼀帀ꪄ愙Ĥ摧ኚ6

!

9

F

a

!

F

b

¾

Á

ç

a

b

~

™

Ÿ

¦

§

¨

¼

½

Á

Ê

ç

d

e

Ü

Ý

ñ

ò

ö

÷

3ç

j

Æ

 h

hZ

hZ

hZ

2

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

*	 hH

@

(

혈0᠂䀀耤⠆

혈0᠂䀀耤⠆

혈0᠂䀀耤⠆

혈0᠂䀀耤⠆

혈0᠂䀀耤⠆

将

将

将

将

将

将

将

将

hY

7

8

8

8

8

0

9

´

µ

 hš

"0

h¡

gdH

hH

gdH

 h

¶

¶

¶

¶

l

n

 h°

h

h

gd

$

h

摧ኚ6

਀&䘋

h

hç

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

愀Ĥ摧ϗЀ

瑹咮L

$

h‡

$

$

$

h‡

h‡

  h‡

h‡

 h‡

h‡

 h‡

h‡

h‡

h‡

h‡

h‡

h‡

愀Ĥ摧浽Ò

ᔔ橨ᘀ鹨

hž

hž

 ̀Ĥ옍

hž

hž

hž

hž

hž

hž

hž

$

Æ

$

Æ

$

hž

hž

hž

hž

hž

$

Æ

瑹䇫Ç

$

Æ

$

$

Æ

옍

瑹公¦

J

K

˜

™

Ø

Ù

摧公¦

摧公¦

摧公¦

摧公¦

ô

ô

ô

ô

ô

ô

ô

ô

ô

ô

ô

ô

ô

ô

ô

ô

ô

ô

耀

਀&䘋

ô

ô

hí

hí

hí

ô

ytí

gdí

_

 	j

 	j

”ÿJ

¶

ô

R

”ÿJ

¶

ô

R

”ÿJ

¶

ô

R

”ÿJ

¶

ô

R

”ÿJ

¶

ô

R

”ÿ

n

R

”ÿ

n

R

	”

d

d

ritical scientific information needed to characterize potential hazard
to the human population on the nervous system from pesticide exposure.
These studies can provide data on a wide range of functional tests for
evaluating neurotoxicity including sensory effects, neuromuscular
effects, learning and memory and histopathology of the nervous system.
For example, animal studies with organophosphorous chemicals have shown
neurotoxicity to be the primary toxic endpoints (e.g. cholinesterase
inhibition) of concern in rodents and non-rodents.    These animal
studies can be used to select endpoints and doses for use in risk
assessment of all exposure scenarios and are considered a primary data
source for reliable reference dose calculation. The Agency has
established an oral reference dose (RfD) for assessing dietary risks for
a number of chemicals (e.g. organophosphates and carbamates) where
neurotoxicity was the most sensitive endpoint of concern.

How could the data impact the Agency's future decision-making?

If the acute or subchronic neurotoxicity studies show that mefenoxam
poses either a greater or a diminished risk than that given in the
interim decision’s conclusion, the risk assessment for mefenoxam may
need to be revised to reflect the magnitude of potential risk derived
from the new data.

If the Agency does not have this data, a 10X database uncertainty factor
may be applied when conducting a risk assessment using the currently
available studies.

 PAGE

Page   PAGE  58  of   NUMPAGES  59


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 70 (Thursday, April 11, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14634-14640]
[FR Doc No: 2019-07212]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0744; FRL-9992-01-Region 9]

Air Plan Approval; Hawaii; Regional Haze Progress Report

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve Hawaii's Regional Haze Progress Report (``Progress Report'' or
``Report'') submitted by the State of Hawaii on October 20, 2017, as a
revision to its state implementation plan (SIP). Hawaii submitted its
Progress Report and a negative declaration stating that further
revision of the existing regional haze plan is not needed at this time.
The Progress Report addresses the federal Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to submit a report
describing progress in achieving reasonable progress goals (RPGs)
established for regional haze and a determination of the adequacy of
the State's existing plan addressing regional haze. Hawaii's Progress
Report notes that Hawaii has implemented the measures in the regional
haze plan due to be in place by the date of the Progress Report and
that visibility in Class I areas affected by emissions from Hawaii is
improving. The EPA is proposing to approve Hawaii's determination that
the State's regional haze plan is adequate to meet RPGs in Class I
areas affected by emissions from Hawaii for the first implementation
period, which extended through 2018, and requires no substantive
revision at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 13, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2018-0744 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office, EPA
Region IX,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. Description of Regional Haze
    B. History of Regional Haze Rule
    C. Hawaii's Regional Haze Plan
II. Context for Understanding Hawaii's Progress Report
    A. Framework for Measuring Progress
    B. Data Sources for Hawaii's Progress Report
III. The EPA's Evaluation of Hawaii's Progress Report
    A. Status of Implementation of All Measures Included in the
Regional Haze Implementation Plan
    B. Summary of Emissions Reductions
    C. Summary of Visibility Conditions
    D. Determination of Adequacy
    E. Consultation With FLMs
IV. The EPA's Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. Description of Regional Haze

    Regional haze is visibility impairment produced by many sources and
activities located across a broad geographic area that emit fine
particles

that impair visibility by scattering and absorbing light, thereby
reducing the clarity, color, and visible distance that one can see.
These fine particles also can cause serious health effects and
mortality in humans and contribute to environmental impacts, such as
acid deposition and eutrophication of water bodies.

B. History of Regional Haze Rule

    In section 169A(a)(1) of the CAA Amendments of 1977, Congress
created a program to protect visibility in designated national parks
and wilderness areas, establishing as a national goal the ``prevention
of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of
visibility in mandatory class I Federal areas which impairment results
from manmade air pollution.'' In accordance with section 169A of the
CAA and after consulting with the Department of the Interior, the EPA
promulgated a list of 156 mandatory Class I federal areas where
visibility is identified as an important value.\1\ In this notice, we
refer to mandatory Class I federal areas on this list as ``Class I
areas.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Class I areas are listed at 40 CFR part 81, subpart D.
Areas designated as Class I areas consist of national parks
exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks
exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks that were in
existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7472(a)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With the CAA Amendments of 1990, Congress added section 169B to
address regional haze issues. The EPA promulgated the RHR on July 1,
1999.\2\ In the RHR, the EPA revised the existing visibility
regulations to integrate provisions addressing regional haze impairment
and to establish a comprehensive visibility protection program for
Class I areas. As defined in the RHR, the RPGs must provide for an
improvement in visibility for the most impaired days (``worst days'')
over the period of the implementation plan and ensure no degradation in
visibility for the least impaired days (``best days'') over the same
period.\3\ The first implementation plan generally covers the period
from 2000-2018 (also known as the first planning period).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999). The rule was subsequently
revised on July 6, 2005 (70 FR 39104), October 13, 2006 (71 FR
60612), and January 10, 2017 (82 FR 3078).
    \3\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Five years after submittal of the initial regional haze plan,
states were required to submit progress reports that evaluate progress
towards the RPGs for each Class I area within the state and in each
Class I area outside the state which may be affected by emissions from
within the state.\4\ States were also required to submit, at the same
time as the progress report, a determination of the adequacy of the
state's existing regional haze plan.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 40 CFR 51.308(g).
    \5\ 40 CFR 51.308(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Hawaii's Regional Haze Plan

    Hawaii did not submit an initial regional haze SIP. Consequently,
the EPA developed a regional haze federal implementation plan (FIP),
which was promulgated on October 9, 2012.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 77 FR 61478.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 20, 2017, the State of Hawaii submitted the Progress
Report to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h). In
accordance with these requirements, the Progress Report describes the
status of the implementation of measures included in the regional haze
implementation plan,\7\ emissions reductions from these measures, and
improvements in visibility conditions at the State's Class I areas. The
Progress Report also includes a negative declaration stating that
further revision of the existing implementation plan is not needed in
accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``Implementation plan,'' as defined in 40 CFR 51.301,
includes FIP provisions, as well as SIPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is proposing to approve Hawaii's Progress Report.

II. Context for Understanding Hawaii's Progress Report

    To better understand Hawaii's Progress Report as well as the EPA's
evaluation of it, this section provides background on the regional haze
program in Hawaii.

A. Framework for Measuring Progress

    The EPA has established a metric for determining visibility
conditions at Class I areas referred to as the ``deciview index,''
which is measured in deciviews (dv), as defined in 40 CFR 51.301. A
deciview expresses uniform changes in haziness in terms of common
increments across the entire range of visibility conditions, from
pristine to extremely hazy conditions. Deciviews are determined by
using air quality data collected from the Interagency Monitoring of
Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network monitors to estimate
light extinction, and then transforming the value of light extinction
using a logarithmic function.
    Hawaii has two Class I areas within its borders: Haleakala National
Park (NP) on Maui Island and Hawaii Volcanoes NP on the island of
Hawaii. For this Progress Report, monitoring data representing
visibility conditions in Hawaii's two Class I areas were based on the
three IMPROVE monitors identified in Table 1.\8\ As shown in the table,
the HACR1 and HALE1 monitoring sites represent Haleakala NP, and the
HAVO1 site represents Hawaii Volcanoes NP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The HALE1 IMPROVE monitor began operation on Maui in 1990 at
a site about 3.5 miles outside of Haleakala NP. In 2007, a second
IMPROVE monitor (HACR1) was installed at a higher elevation within
Haleakala NP. The HACR1 site was considered more representative of
visibility conditions within Haleakala NP and replaced the HALE1
monitoring station in 2012. See Progress Report, 3, and Appendix.A.

 Table 1--Hawaii IMPROVE Monitoring Sites and Represented Class I Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Class I area                           Site code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Haleakala NP............................................      \a\ HACR1.
                                                              \b\ HALE1.
Hawaii Volcanoes NP.....................................          HAVO1.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Monitoring at the HACR1 site began in 2007.
\b\ The HALE1 monitoring site operated from 2001 to 2011.

    Under the RHR, a state's initial regional haze SIP must establish
two RPGs for each of its Class I areas: One for the 20 percent least
impaired days and one for the 20 percent most impaired days. The RPGs
must provide for an improvement in visibility on the 20 percent most
impaired days and ensure no degradation in visibility on the 20 percent
least impaired days, as compared to visibility conditions during the
baseline period. In establishing the RPGs, a state must consider the
uniform rate of visibility improvement from the baseline to natural
conditions in 2064 and the emission reduction measures needed to
achieve that uniform rate. The typical method for determining RPGs is
to use meteorological and air quality modeling to predict the
visibility at Class I areas for the end of the planning period (2018 in
this case). However, the dominant cause of visibility impairment in
Hawaii's Class I areas is sulfate compounds, and over 96 percent of the
sulfate emissions are from Hawaii's volcano. Volcanic eruptions vary
greatly from year to year with no discernable patterns. As a result,
modeling to project overall visibility conditions has little value for
Hawaii's Class I areas. Consequently, the EPA set the RPGs for Hawaii's
two Class I areas based on island-specific inventories for Maui and
Hawaii, the islands that contain Class I areas.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 77 FR 31692, 31707-13 (May 29, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Data Sources for Hawaii's Progress Report

    To demonstrate visibility progress, Hawaii used data from the
Western

Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) Technical Support System (TSS). Hawaii
used the most recent visibility information available from the WRAP TSS
as a technical basis for its progress report. It also used the
technical data and analyses in a report titled ``Western Regional Air
Partnership Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Summary Report''
(``WRAP Report''), dated June 28, 2013.\10\ The WRAP Report was
prepared for WRAP, ``on behalf of the 15 western state members in the
WRAP region, to provide the technical basis for use by the western
states to develop the first of RHR individual Progress Reports.'' \11\
Hawaii's Progress Report presented data for both of its Class I areas,
comparing visibility conditions for the 20 percent most impaired and 20
percent least impaired days during the baseline period (2000-2004), the
current period for the Progress Report (2011-2015), and years between
those periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Progress Report, 3, and Western Regional Air
Partnership Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Summary Report
(June 28, 2013). http://www.wrapair2.org/documents/Fullpercent20Report/WRAP_RHRPR_Full_Report_without_Appendices.PDF.
(Also included as Appendix A of the Progress Report).
    \11\ Progress Report, Appendix A, 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. The EPA's Evaluation of Hawaii's Progress Report

    This section describes the contents of Hawaii's Progress Report and
the EPA's review of the report, the determination of adequacy required
by 40 CFR 51.308(h), and the requirement for state and Federal Land
Manager (FLM) coordination in 40 CFR 51.308(i).

A. Status of Implementation of All Measures Included in the Regional
Haze Implementation Plan

    In its Progress Report, Hawaii described the status of the control
measures that the EPA and the State relied on to implement the regional
haze program: The sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions cap from
the FIP; the State's renewable portfolio standard and energy efficiency
programs; the North American Emissions Control Area (ECA); federal
mobile source regulations; the State's open burning regulations; and
facility closures. Hawaii included a description of these programs,
which are summarized below. Hawaii also explained that the FIP did not
include any controls to implement best available retrofit technology
(BART).
1. SO2 Emissions Cap for Electricity Generating Units (EGUs)
    The Hawaii regional haze FIP established an SO2
emissions cap in 40 CFR 52.633(d). Affected EGUs shall not emit or
cause to be emitted more than 3,550 tons per year (tpy), summed over 5
units using a rolling 12-month period. These units are Kanoelehua Hill
Generating Station, boilers Hill 5 and Hill 6; Puna Power Plant, boiler
1; and Shipman Power Plant, boilers S-3 and S-4. The primary fuel for
these boilers is fuel oil number 6. The Shipman Power Plant permanently
closed on December 31, 2015; thus, the SO2 emissions cap
applies only to the affected EGUs at Kanoelehua Hill and Puna. The
Hawaii Department of Health (DOH) provided copies of the current air
permits for each facility to the EPA in November 2018 to document the
State's implementation of the FIP.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See letter dated November 15, 2018, from Bruce S. Anderson,
Ph.D., Director of Health, Hawaii DOH, to Mr. Michael Stoker,
Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) and Energy Efficiency Programs
    Hawaii has state-level renewable energy and energy efficiency
programs for greenhouse gas reduction that have reduced electricity
generation. These programs have also resulted in reductions in
emissions of SO2 and nitrogen oxides (NOX) due to
reduced fuel use. As part of Hawaii's RPS, Hawaiian Electric Light
Company (HELCO) plans to achieve 100 percent renewable energy by
2045.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Progress Report, 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Hawaii Agricultural and Open Burning Programs
    The Hawaii DOH regulates open burning, including agricultural,
residential, and prescribed burning. For agricultural burning, the
State has established a permit program for burning green waste, which
may be restricted during times of drought, fire hazard, or designated
``No Burn'' periods. Hawaii Commercial and Sugar Company (HC&S) on Maui
had agricultural burn permits to burn cane, but the facility closed in
2016.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id. at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Facility Closures
    Table. 2.2-1 in the Progress Report lists three sources that have
closed, including HC&S Puunene Sugar Mill, Maui Pineapple Company, and
HELCO Shipman. Although these closures were not required under the FIP,
all of these closures have reduced emissions of visibility-impairing
pollutants.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id. at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. North American ECA
    The North American ECA became enforceable in August 2012 and
regulates emissions of NOX, SO2, and fine
particulate from ships. The North American ECA includes waters adjacent
to the eight main Hawaiian Islands. The North American ECA emissions
standards include a decreasing fuel sulfur limit and engine
NOX standards, both of which will contribute to reductions
of visibility-impairing pollutants near Class I areas in Hawaii.
6. Federal Mobile Source Controls
    In its Progress Report, Hawaii discussed several rules the EPA has
promulgated to reduce emissions from mobile sources. In 2001, the EPA
promulgated a rule with an emissions limit for NOX from
heavy-duty highway vehicles of 0.20 grams per brake-horsepower-hour,
which was phased in between 2007 and 2010.\16\ In 2004, the EPA
promulgated a Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule to reduce emissions from
nonroad diesel engines and/or fuels, including construction,
agricultural, industrial, airport, locomotive, and marine vessel
engines. The rule established limits to be phased in by 2014.\17\ The
EPA also issued new fuel sulfur requirements for ultra-low sulfur
diesel fuel in 2006.\18\ Federal Tier II fuel standards reduced the
sulfur content of gasoline by up to 90 percent.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 66 FR 5002 (January 18, 2001).
    \17\ 69 FR 38958 (June 29, 2004).
    \18\ 65 FR 6698 (February 10, 2000).
    \19\ See https://www.epa.gov/gasoline-standards/gasoline-sulfur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Summary of Emissions Reductions

    Section 5.0 of the Hawaii Progress Report includes a summary of the
emissions reductions achieved throughout the State through
implementation of the control measures relied upon to achieve
reasonable progress. In addition, the Progress Report summarizes
changes in emissions inventories for all major visibility-impairing
pollutants from point, area, on-road mobile, non-road mobile, marine,
and anthropogenic fire source categories in the State. For these
summaries, emissions during the baseline years are represented using a
2005 inventory, which was the most complete inventory available at the
time the regional haze FIP was developed. It was developed with support
from ENVIRON International Corporation and some emissions estimates
were refined by Hawaii DOH. The EPA also worked with contractors at the
University of North Carolina and ICF International on estimating on-
road emissions.\20\

Differences between inventories are represented as the difference
between the 2005 inventory developed for the Hawaii regional haze FIP
and a 2011 inventory based on the 2011 National Emissions Inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Technical Support Document for the Proposed Action on the
Federal Implementation Plan for the Regional Haze Program in the
State of Hawaii, U.S. EPA Region 9, May 14, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hawaii's Progress Report noted that in the SO2 emissions
inventory, volcanic emissions dominate the inventory, far exceeding
anthropogenic sources of SO2. Likewise, nonanthropogenic
particulate matter (PM10) emissions from sea spray dominate
the PM10 inventory. Specifically, Hawaii identified in the
Progress Report:
     SO2 emissions reductions achieved through
controls on point and area sources with slight (less than 1 percent of
total SO2 emissions) increases between 2005 and 2011 in
other fire/prescribed burning;
     Decreases in NOX emissions from area sources
and mobile sources, which more than offset increases in point source
emissions and emissions from other fire/prescribed burning; and
     A slight (4 percent) increase in statewide volatile
organic compound (VOC) emissions due to increases from point and area
sources that was not offset by decreases from mobile sources.
    The emissions inventories were complicated by the changes and
enhancements that have occurred between development of the baseline and
current period emissions inventories. Hawaii stated that some of the
differences between inventories are more reflective of changes in
inventory methodology, rather that changes in actual emissions. For
example, both biogenic VOC emissions and volcanic emissions were
updated.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Progress Report, 42, footnotes 4 and 5 to Table 5.0-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notwithstanding these differences between the 2005 and 2011
emissions inventory methodologies, estimated emissions for
SO2, NOX, VOC, PM10 and ammonia
(NH3) are summarized in Tables 2 and 3 below.

                                   Table 2--2005 Statewide Emissions Inventory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        SO2             NOX             VOC            PM10             NH3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Anthropogenic Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources...................          27,072          22,745           2,695           3,536              12
Area Sources....................           3,716           1,509          16,920          33,408          11,136
Agricultural Burning............             178             406             535           1,567              60
Other Fire......................               0               1               7               7               0
On-Road Mobile..................             321          20,642          12,066             638           1,085
Non-Road Mobile.................             669           6,296           6,383             649               0
Marine..........................           3,619           5,624             209             398               0
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Anthropogenic.........          35,575          57,223          38,815          40,203          12,298
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Natural Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volcano.........................         961,366               0               0               0               0
Sea Spray.......................               0               0               0         382,637               0
Windblown Dust..................               0               0               0          46,808               0
Wildfire........................             591           2,156           4,729           4,771             540
Biogenic........................               0           4,617         130,153               0               0
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Natural...............         961,957           6,773         134,882         439,216             540
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   All Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Emissions.................         997,531          63,996         173,697         479,419          12,838
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Progress Report, 42.

                                   Table 3--2011 Statewide Emissions Inventory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        SO2             NOX             VOC            PM10             NH3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Anthropogenic Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources...................          22,047          28,982           3,059           2,813           1,031
Area Sources....................           3,331           1,176          18,425          34,803           7,547
Agricultural Burning............             178             405             535           1,567             148
Other Fire......................              36             389           1,672             853              59
On-Road Mobile..................             102          15,503          11,180             305             412
Non-Road Mobile.................               7           3,842           5,428             403               6
Marine..........................           2,037           4,895             154             338               3
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Anthropogenic.........          27,738          55,192          40,453          41,420           9,749
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Natural Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volcano.........................         406,030               0               0               0               0
Sea Spray.......................               0               0               0         382,637               0
Windblown Dust..................               0               0               0          46,808               0
Wildfire........................               9              99             390             162              12

Biogenic........................               0           4,617         130,153               0               0
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Natural...............         406,039           4,716         130,543         429,607              12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   All Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Emissions.................         433,768          59,808         170,996         471,027           9,761
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Progress Report, 42.

    Changes in emissions from 2005 to 2011 for SO2,
NOX, and VOC, respectively, are noted in absolute value and
as a percentage of baseline emissions presented in tables 4, 5, and 6.

               Table 4--Changes in Anthropogenic SO2 Emissions and Percent Changes From 2005-2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Statewide SO2 (tpy)
                 Source category                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       2005            2011           Change      Percent change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources...................................          27,072          22,047          -5,025             -19
Area Sources....................................           3,716           3,331            -385             -10
Agricultural Burning............................             178             178               0               0
Other Fire/Prescribed Burning...................               0              36              36            >100
On-Road Mobile Sources..........................             321             102            -219             -68
Non-Road Mobile Sources.........................             669               7            -662             -99
Marine..........................................           3,619           2,037          -1,582             -44
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Anthropogenic.........................          35,575          27,738          -7,837             -22
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Progress Report, 44.

               Table 5--Changes in Anthropogenic NOX Emissions and Percent Changes From 2005-2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Statewide SO2 (tpy)
                 Source category                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       2005            2011           Change      Percent change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources...................................          22,745          28,892           6,237              27
Area Sources....................................           1,509           1,176            -333             -22
Agricultural Burning............................             406             405              -1            -0.2
Other Fire/Prescribed Burning...................               1             389             388            >100
On-Road Mobile Sources..........................          20,642          15,503          -5,139             -25
Non-Road Mobile Sources.........................           6,296           3,842          -2,454             -39
Marine..........................................           5,624           4,895            -729             -13
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Anthropogenic.........................          57,223          55,192          -2,031              -4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Progress Report, 45.

               Table 6--Changes in Anthropogenic VOC Emissions and Percent Changes From 2005-2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Statewide SO2 (tpy)
                 Source category                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       2005            2011           Change      Percent change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources...................................           2,695           3,059             364              14
Area Sources....................................          16,920          18,425           1,505               9
Agricultural Burning............................             535             535               0               0
Other Fire/Prescribed Burning...................               7           1,672             166            >100
On-Road Mobile Sources..........................          12,066          11,180            -886             -25
Non-Road Mobile Sources.........................           6,383           5,428            -955             -15
Marine..........................................             209             154             -55             -26
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Anthropogenic.........................          38,815          40,452           1,638               4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Progress Report, 46.

    In its Progress Report, Hawaii concluded that the control
strategies in the existing regional haze plan are adequate to meet the
2018 RPGs. Progress includes significant reductions in SO2
and NOX emissions from Maui and Hawaii Island point sources,
including the SO2 emissions cap, renewable energy projects,
the retirement of some units, and facility closures.

C. Summary of Visibility Conditions

    Hawaii's Progress Report provided visibility data during the
baseline period (2000-2004), the current period for the Progress Report
(2011-2015), and for the rolling 5-year periods between the baseline
and current periods, based on IMPROVE data that were available at the
time Hawaii developed the Progress Report. These RPGs are listed in
Table 7 along with the baseline and current (as of submission of the
Progress Report) visibility conditions.

                            Table 7--Hawaii Class I Area Visibility Conditions on the 20 Percent Most and Least Impaired Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                20% Most impaired days                              20% Least impaired days
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 2005-09                                             2005-09
      Hawaii Class I area        Monitor/region     2000-04       First       2011-15     2018 RPGs     2000-04       First       2011-15     2018 RPGs
                                                    Baseline     progress     current        (dv)       Baseline     progress     Current        (dv)
                                                      (dv)     period (dv)  period (dv)                   (dv)     period (dv)  period (dv)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Haleakala NP..................  \a\ HACR1.......      \b\ 9.5     \b\ 10.8      \c\ 9.7       \d\ 13      \e\ 1.0      \e\ 0.9      \f\ 0.6      \g\ 4.5
                                HALE1...........     \b\ 13.3     \b\ 14.8                                \e\ 4.5      \e\ 4.4
Hawaii Volcanoes NP...........  HAVO1...........     \b\ 18.9     \h\ 24.9     \i\ 18.0     \d\ 18.7      \j\ 4.1      \k\ 3.8      \l\ 3.4      \m\ 4.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The HACR1 IMPROVE monitor began operation in 2007, thus 2007-2009 data used for Haleakala NP for the 2005-2009 period. See Progress Report, 26-27.
\b\ Progress Report, Appendix A, Table 6.5-4.
\c\ Id,, Table 4.1-1.
\d\ Id., Table 6.5-5.
\e\ 77 FR 31692, 31713 (May 29, 2012). The RPG for Haleakala was based on monitoring data from HALE1.
\f\ Progress Report, Table 4.1-1.
\g\ Id., Table 7.0-2 (sum of values for all species under ``2018 With FIP'').
\h\ Id., Table 4.2-3.
\i\ Id., Table 4.1-3.
\j\ Id., Table 4.2-4.
\k\ Id.
\l\ Id., Table 4.1-4.
\m\ Id., Table 7.0-2 (sum of values for all species under ``2018 With FIP'').

    Based on the information in Chapter 4.0 of the Progress Report,
Hawaii demonstrated that both Class I areas experienced improvements in
visibility for the 20 percent most and least impaired days between the
baseline (2000-2004) and current (2011-2015) visibility periods, as
summarized in table 7 above and shown in tables 4.0-1, 4.0-2, 4.0-3,
4.1-1 and 4.1-2 of the Progress Report. Table 7 also shows that the
five-year average worst days and best days during the current period
(2011-2015) were below (i.e., better than) the 2018 RPGs. Thus, both of
the State's Class I areas are on track to meet or surpass their 2018
RPGs.
    Hawaii's Progress Report included an analysis of progress and
impediments to progress. Hawaii evaluated visibility trends from 2007
to 2015 from the HACR1 monitor and 2001 to 2015 at the HAVO1
monitor.\22\ Hawaii noted that five-year rolling averages of the haze
index show slight visibility improvements on both the 20 percent most-
impaired days and more significant visibility improvements for the 20
percent least-impaired days for both Class I areas.\23\ Hawaii's
Progress Report concluded that control strategies in the existing
regional haze plan are adequate to meet the 2018 RPGs. The average
trends for least-impaired days show improvement at both monitoring
locations. Similarly, average trends for most-impaired days show
improvement. The Progress Report also contains a review of Hawaii's
visibility monitoring strategy. In the Progress Report, Hawaii
concludes that the IMPROVE network continues to comply with the
monitoring requirements in the Regional Haze Rule and that no
modifications to Hawaii's visibility monitoring strategy are necessary
at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Progress Report, 37.
    \23\ Id. at 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Progress Report did not expressly address Class I areas outside
the state. As explained in our proposed regional haze FIP:

    Hawaii lies approximately 2,390 miles southwest of the
Continental United States and has been included by EPA in the
regional haze program, ``because of the potential for emissions from
sources within [its] borders to contribute to regional haze
impairment in Class I areas also located within [Hawaii's] own
jurisdiction.'' \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 77 FR 31713 (quoting 64 FR 35714, 35720).

    Therefore, we found that emissions from Hawaii were not reasonably
anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in any mandatory
Class I Federal area located in another state or states.\25\ For the
same reasons, we now find that it was appropriate for Hawaii to exclude
discussion of out-of-state areas in its Progress Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Determination of Adequacy

    Within the Progress Report, the State of Hawaii provided a negative
declaration stating that further revision of the existing
implementation plan is not needed in accordance with 40 CFR
51.308(h)(1).\26\ The basis for the State's negative declaration is the
information in the Progress Report and the determination that Hawaii
was on track to achieve 2018 RPGs for the State's Class I areas. Given
the reductions in SO2 and NOX emissions and the
improvements in visibility at the State's Class I areas achieved during
the planning period, the EPA proposes to approve Hawaii's determination
that the existing Hawaii regional haze plan requires no substantive
revisions at this time to achieve the established RPGs for Class I
areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Progress Report, 81.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Consultation With FLMs

    The State of Hawaii invited the FLMs to comment on its draft
Progress Report on May 12, 2017, and provided a 60-day comment period
prior to releasing the report for public comment.\27\ In a letter dated
July 6, 2017, the FLMs concurred with Hawaii's conclusion in its draft
progress report that additional revisions

to the State's regional haze implementation plan were not needed at
this time.\28\ The EPA proposes to find that Hawaii has addressed the
requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See electronic mail dated May 12, 2017, from Michael
Madsen, Hawaii DOH, to Susan Johnson and Patricia Brewer, National
Park Service, requesting comment on Hawaii's Regional Haze Progress
Report, in the docket for today's action.
    \28\ See letter dated July 6, 2017, from Patricia Brewer,
National Park Service, to Michael Madsen, Hawaii DOH.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. The EPA's Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve the Hawaii Regional Haze Progress
Report submitted to the EPA on October 20, 2017, as meeting the
applicable requirements of the CAA and RHR, as set forth in 40 CFR
51.308(g). The EPA proposes to approve Hawaii's determination that the
existing regional haze plan is adequate to meet the established RPGs in
Class I areas affected by emissions from Hawaii and requires no
substantive revision at this time. We propose to find that Hawaii
fulfilled the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(i) regarding state
coordination with FLMs.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations.\29\ Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's
role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria
of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 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
proposed action:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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 actions such as 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 this rulemaking does not involve technical standards; and
     Does not provide the 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 proposed action does not apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Visibility, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: March 26, 2019.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2019-07212 Filed 4-10-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 69 (Friday, April 10, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19200-19201]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08343]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0122]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Curtis Creek, Baltimore, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the I-695 Bridge across Curtis
Creek, mile 1.0, Baltimore, MD. This temporary deviation allows the
drawbridge to remain in the closed to navigation position to facilitate
an interim structural inspection and an in-depth electrical/mechanical
inspection.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 8 a.m. on April 13, 2015 to 5
p.m. on May 8, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0122]
is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in
the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on
Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation. You may
also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the
ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Ms. Kashanda Booker, Bridge
Administration Branch, Fifth District, Coast Guard; telephone (757)
398-6227, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have
questions on reviewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program
Manager, Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Maryland Transportation Authority, who
owns and operates this drawbridge, has requested a temporary deviation
from the current operating regulations set out in 33 CFR 117.557 to
facilitate an interim structural inspection and an in-depth electrical/
mechanical inspection.

    Under the regular operating schedule, the I-695 Bridge draw
must open on signal if at least one hour notice is given. The bridge
has a vertical clearance in the closed position to vessels of 58 feet
above mean high water.
    Under this temporary deviation, the drawbridge will be maintained
in the closed to navigation position daily between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.
but will be able to open for navigation with a 2 hour advance notice by
contacting<PHONE_NUMBER> or utilizing VHF Channel 13/16.
    The bridge will operate under the normal operating schedule at all
other times. Emergency openings can be provided with advance notice by
contacting<PHONE_NUMBER> or utilizing VHF Channel 13/16. There
are no alternate routes for vessels transiting this section of the
Curtis Creek.
    Curtis Creek is used by a variety of vessels including military,
tugs, commercial, and recreational vessels. The Coast Guard has
carefully coordinated the restrictions with these waterway users. The
Coast Guard will also inform additional waterway users through our
Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the closure periods for the
bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any
impacts caused by the temporary deviation. Mariners able to pass under
the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. However,
mariners are advised to proceed with caution.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: March 30, 2015.
James L. Rousseau,
Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2015-08343 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 38 (Monday, February 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11527-11529]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4405]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP12-51-000]

Bluewater Gas Storage, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed St. Clair River Crossing
Replacement Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and
Notice of Onsite Environmental Review

    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 Bluewater Gas Storage, LLC
(Bluewater) St. Clair River Crossing Replacement Project (Project)
involving the construction of the United States portion of the U.S.-
Canada cross-border pipeline facilities from St. Clair County, Michigan
to the international boundary within the St. Clair River for the
import-export of up to 300 million cubic feet per day (MMCf/d) of
natural gas. This EA will be used by the Commission in its decision-
making process to determine whether the project is in the public
convenience and necessity.
    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. Your input will help the Commission staff
determine what issues need to be evaluated in the EA. Please note that
the project scoping period will close on March 17, 2012. Further
details on how to submit written comments are provided in the Public
Participation section of this notice.
    The office of Energy Projects staff will conduct an onsite
environmental review of the project area to gather data for its
environmental analysis of the proposed project. Viewing of the project
area is anticipated to be from Bluewater's property along River Road.
Those attending should meet at the following location and time: FERC
Onsite Environmental Review, St. Clair River Crossing Replacement
Project, February 28, 2012 at 9 a.m. Eastern Time, 1060 River Road,
Marysville, Michigan 48040-1510.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project as described under the Environmental
Mailing List Section of this notice. The notice is also being sent to
those landowners outside of the immediate construction work areas who
could potentially be affected during construction from secondary,
short-term construction-related noise and/or visual impacts. State and
local government representatives are asked to notify their constituents
of this proposed project and encourage them to comment on their areas
of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, and you are contacted
by a representative of Bluewater about the acquisition of an easement
to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities, please
note that the company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable
agreement. However, if the project is approved by the Commission, that
approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if
easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the company could
initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be
determined in accordance with state law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' was attached to the
project notice Bluewater provided to landowners. This fact sheet
addresses a number of typically-asked questions, including the use of
eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.
It is also available for viewing on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov).

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Bluewater proposes to construct and operate a new natural gas
pipeline directionally drilled underneath the St. Clair River from
Bluewater's header system in St. Clair County, Michigan to the
International Border. The proposed Project would consist of:
     The construction and operation of approximately 1,500 feet
of 20-inch-diameter pipeline directionally drilled underneath the St.
Clair River to the international border (Cross Border Facilities)
within the St. Clair River and construction of approximately 345 feet
of 20-inch-diameter replacement pipeline facilities \1\ to connect the
Cross-Border Facilities to Bluewater's existing 30-mile, 20-inch-
diameter pipeline header system in Marysville, St. Clair County,
Michigan;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Requested under Bluewater's existing National Gas Act
Section 7 Blanket Certificate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     A Presidential Permit authorizing Bluewater to install,
construct, own, operate and maintain the U.S. portion of the cross-
border facilities, pursuant to Part 153, Subpart C of the Commission's
regulations, and Executive Order No. 10,485, as amended by Executive
Order No. 12,038;
     Vacating an existing Section 3 Authorization and
Presidential Permit with respect to leased facilities with Nova
Chemicals;
     Remove approximately 245 feet of 20-inch-diameter pipeline
and 30 feet of 12-inch-diameter pipeline; \2\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Modify an existing meter station to increase its
measurement capacity.\2\
    The general location of the Project facilities is shown in appendix
1.

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the Project pipeline facilities would be conducted
by the horizontal directional drilling method (HDD) from a location
approximately 425 feet on the U.S. inland side of the St. Clair River
(entry point) to the U.S.-Canada international border within the river
(Appendix 1). The Project would permanently disturb about 0.95 acres of
land.

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 issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
\3\ 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. All comments
received will be considered during the preparation of the EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``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 proposed project under these
general headings:
     Geology and soils;
     Land use;
     Water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
     Cultural resources;
     Vegetation and wildlife;
     Air quality and noise;
     Endangered and threatened species; and
     Public safety.
    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed
project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to
lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be presented in the EA.
The

EA will be placed in the public record and, depending on the comments
received during the scoping process, may be published and distributed
to the public. A comment period will be allotted if the EA is published
for review. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make our
recommendations to the Commission. To ensure your comments are
considered, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public
Participation section of this notice.
    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction and/or
special expertise with respect to environmental issues to formally
cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA. These agencies may
choose to participate once they have evaluated the proposal relative to
their responsibilities. 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.

Consultations Under Section 106 of the Natural Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the Natural Historic
Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation
with applicable State Historic Preservation Office(s) (SHPO), 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(s) as the project
is further developed. 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 would document our
findings on the potential project impacts on historic properties and
summarize the status of consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Public Participation

    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. The more specific
your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so
that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before March 17,
2012.
    For your convenience, there are three methods which you can use to
submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances please
reference the project docket number (CP12-51-000) with your submission.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert
eFiling staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at www.ferc.gov
under the link to Documents and Filings. An eComment is an easy method
for interested persons to submit brief, text-only comments on a
project;
    (2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at 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.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you
are making. A comment on a particular project is considered a ``Comment
on a Filing''; or
    (3) You may file a paper copy of your comments at the following
address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials; Native
American Tribes; environmental and public interest groups; 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. In this notice we have also included
landowners that could be inadvertently affected by construction noise
or visual impacts. 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
proposed project.
    If the EA is published for distribution, copies 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

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, 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. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are
included in the User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the
Commission's Web site.

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 at 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., CP12-
51). 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 now 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/esubscribenow.htm.
    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: February 16, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-4405 Filed 2-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P