EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

EPA Registration Division contact: Elizabeth Fertich<PHONE_NUMBER>

Nichino America, Inc.

[Insert petition number]

	EPA has received a pesticide petition ([insert petition number]) from Nichino America, Inc., 4550 Linden Hill Rd., Suite 501, Wilmington, Delaware, 19808, USA requesting, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing a tolerance for residues of benzpyrimoxan, 5-(1,3-dioxan-2-yl)-4-[4-(trifluoromethyl)benzyloxy]pyrimidine in or on the raw agricultural commodity rice, grain at 0.9 parts per million (ppm).  EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism. The metabolic fate of benzpyrimoxan in rice is adequately understood. The metabolism of benzpyrimoxan was studied in rice grown under paddy conditions in a greenhouse using benzpyrimoxan radiolabeled in the phenyl ring ([phenyl-U-14C]benzpyrimoxan ) and the pyrimidinyl ring ([pyrimidinyl-4(6)-14C] benzpyrimoxan). Treatments were applied as a foliar spray at a target rate of 200 g ai/ha in each of 3 applications (total of 600 g ai/ha) for each radiolabel. Samples of foliage, panicle, rice grain, hulls, straw and roots were extracted and extracts analyzed to determine the nature of benzpyrimoxan residue.

Relatively small amounts of radioactive residues were detected in grain (0.10 - 0.25 mg benzpyrimoxan eq./kg) and root (0.05 - 0.09 mg benzpyrimoxan eq./kg). This suggests that translocation of radioactivity is limited. Benzpyrimoxan was the most significant portion of the radioactivity (considering both labels), and was in panicle (81.7-84.7% TRR), foliage (68.8-70.2% TRR), hulled (unpolished or brown) rice (48.3-57.2% TRR), hulls (59.9-60.6% TRR), and straw (48.2-50.5% TRR). NNI-1501-2-OH (metabolite DH-04) was the only metabolite exceeding 10% TRR. In samples treated with [phenyl-(U)-14C]benzpyrimoxan, NNI-1501-2-OH accounted for 15.4% TRR in hulled rice. In samples treated with [pyrimidinyl-4(6)-14C]benzpyrimoxan, NNI-1501-2-OH exceed 10% TRR in foliage (10.9% TRR), hulled rice (17.3% TRR), and straw (11.9% TRR). The remainder of the residue consisted of several, minor products each present at levels <10% TRR.

	2. Analytical method. An adequate enforcement method is available for detection of residues for the proposed tolerance. The QuEChERS method is proposed as the enforcement method for benzpyrimoxan. This method was validated for the determination of benzpyrimoxan and NNI-1501-2-OH in rice grain at fortification levels of 0.010 mg/kg and 0.10 mg/kg. The LOQ for both benzpyrimoxan and NNI-1501-2-OH was 0.01 mg/kg.

An LC-MS/MS analytical method was used in the residue studies. The method involves the extraction of benzpyrimoxan and NNI-1501-2-OH from crop matrices and LC MS/MS detection and was validated using unhulled rice, unpolished (brown) rice, and rice straw. The LOQ for both benzpyrimoxan and NNI-1501-2-OH in all matrices was 0.01 mg/kg.

	3. Magnitude of residues. Field trials were carried out in Japan from 2015 to 2017 in paddy rice to meet the Japanese country registration requirements as well as requirements for an import tolerance in the United States. Benzpyrimoxan was applied at 0.2 kg a.i./ha in each of three foliar applications. Samples of rice grain and straw were collected at 7, 14, and 21 days after the last application and were analyzed for benzpyrimoxan and NNI-1501-2-OH using an LC-MS/MS method with a limit of quantitation (LOQ) of 0.01 mg/kg for both analytes.

B. Toxicological Profile

	1. Acute toxicity. Benzpyrimoxan was found to have low (or practically non-toxic) acute toxicity following exposure via oral (gavage), dermal and inhalation routes of administration. Based on study results, benzpyrimoxan was considered to be a slight irritant to the skin, and to the eye, and to be a skin sensitizer.

Summary of Acute Toxicology Study Results  -  Benzpyrimoxan: Type of study Species Result Oral route Rat LD50 > 2000 mg/kg bw Dermal route Rat LD50 > 2000 mg/kg bw Inhalation Rat LC50 > 3.9 mg/L Primary skin irritation Rabbit Slight irritant Eye irritation Rabbit Slight irritant Skin sensitization Guinea pig Skin sensitizer

An acute neurotoxicity study was conducted in rats with benzpyrimoxan administered once by oral gavage at doses of 0, 500, 1000, and 2000 mg/kg. Neurotoxicity was not observed at any dose level; therefore, the NOAEL for acute neurotoxicity is 2000 mg/kg.

	2. Genotoxicity. Benzpyrimoxan has been evaluated in a comprehensive battery of in vitro and in vivo genotoxicity assays for mutagenicity and clastogenicity. The assays were conducted in compliance with OPPTS, OECD or Japan MAFF guidelines and all were considered to be valid assays based on sensitivity to known positive control substances. The results of these studies indicate that benzpyrimoxan does not have genotoxic potential in these assays. Additionally, the metabolite NNI-1501-2-OH was assayed in a bacterial reverse mutation test and a human lymphocyte micronucleus assay and results did not indicate genotoxicity.

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. Guideline pre-natal developmental oral (gavage) toxicity studies in rats and rabbits and a dietary 2-generation reproductive toxicity study have been conducted with benzpyrimoxan.

Benzpyrimoxan was administered at doses of 0, 10, 50, or 250 mg/kg/day in the rat developmental study. Oral administration of NNI-1501 to maternal rats at a dose of 250 mg/kg bw/day suppressed body weight, body weight gain, and food consumption of maternal rats, while no adverse effects were observed on their fetuses. No increases were seen in the incidences of variant or anomalous fetuses at any dose level examined. Therefore, it was concluded that the NOAELs of NNI-1501 for maternal rats and for their fetuses are 50 mg/kg bw/day and 250 mg/kg bw/day, respectively, and that NNI-1501 is not teratogenic at dose levels up to 250 mg/kg bw/day.

In the rabbit developmental study, benzpyrimoxan was administered at doses of 0, 3, 10, or 30 mg/kg bw/day. In the 3 and 10 mg/kg groups, no adverse effects related to the test article administration were found on maternal rabbits and their fetuses in any parameter examined. Oral administration of NNI-1501 to maternal rabbits at a dose of 30 mg/kg bw/day suppressed body weight, body weight gain, and food consumption of maternal rabbits. This dose also resulted in abortion and low gravid uterine weight.  It was concluded that the NOAELs of NNI-1501 for both maternal rabbits and their fetuses were 10 mg/kg bw/day, and that NNI-1501 is not teratogenic at dose levels up to 30 mg/kg bw/day.

In the 2-generation reproductive toxicity study, benzpyrimoxan was administered at 0, 60, 300, or 2000 ppm over two successive generations to rats. Based on results of the 2-generation study in rats, it was concluded that the parental NOAEL for benzpyrimoxan for reproductive and general toxicity was 300 ppm (15.5 mg/kg bw/day (males) and 23.6 mg/kg bw/day (females), and the dose level of 2000 ppm was the toxic level for general toxicity in parental rats. As for rat pups, the dose level of 300 ppm was the NOAEL (15.5 mg/kg bw/day (males) and 23.6 mg/kg bw/day (females).

	4. Subchronic toxicity. 28-day dietary dose range finding studies were conducted in the rat and mouse to establish appropriate dose levels for use in the 90-day studies. 90-day dietary studies were conducted in the rat, mouse and dog. Data was obtained for the selection of dose levels for the subsequent carcinogenicity studies.

In the 90 day mice toxicity study benzpyrimoxan was administered to males at 0, 400, 2000 and 4000 ppm, and to females at 0, 400, 2000 and 6000 ppm in the diet. Effects on kidney and liver were observed at the 2000 ppm dose level, but there were no toxicologically significant findings at 400 ppm in males or females. Therefore, the 400 ppm dietary dose level was the NOAEL (equivalent to 56.4 mg/kg bw/day in males and 66.1 mg/kg bw /day in females).

In the rat 90-day toxicity study benzpyrimoxan was administered to both male and females at concentration levels of 0, 100, 300, 1000 and 3000 ppm in the diet (equivalent to 0, 6.26, 18.7, 64.2 and 194 mg/kg bw/day for males and 0, 7.41, 22.2, 78.1 and 227 mg/kg bw/day for females) for a period of more than 90 days (13 weeks). At the 1000 ppm dose level unusual crystals were observed in urine sediment in females and effects on the liver and kidney were detected in males and females. Therefore, the NOAEL was determined to be the 300 ppm dose level for both males and females (males, 18.7 mg/kg bw/day; females 22.2 mg/kg bw/day).

A 90-day repeated dose oral toxicity study in dogs was conducted by dietary administration of benzpyrimoxan at dose concentrations of 0, 500, 2500, and 10000 ppm. Based on increased total cholesterol and phospholipid in the blood in both sexes at the 2500 ppm dose level, the NOAEL was determined to be 500 ppm (16.56 mg/kg bw/day for males and 15.89 mg/kg bw/day for females).

	5. Chronic toxicity. Three guideline long-term toxicity studies have been performed with benzpyrimoxan, including a 1-year toxicity study in dogs, a 78-week carcinogenicity study in the mouse, and a combined chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity study in the rat.

In the dog 1-year toxicity study, benzpyrimoxan was administered to male and female dogs in the diet at concentrations of 100, 500 and 2500 ppm.

No toxicologically significant effects were seen in any animal at the 100 ppm dose concentration, however, the following changes related to treatment were noted at 500 and 2500 ppm: Blood chemistry revealed an increase in ALP in females at 500 ppm and in both sexes at 2500 ppm, total cholesterol and phospholipid in both sexes at 500 and 2500 ppm, and in ALT and triglycerides in males at 2500 ppm.

In organ weight measurement, increased absolute and/or relative weights of the liver were noted in both sexes at 500 and 2500 ppm.

Gross pathological examination revealed dark discoloration of the liver in males at 500 ppm and in both sexes at 2500 ppm. In one male at 2500 ppm, enlarged liver was also observed. Histopathology revealed hypertrophy of the centrilobular hepatocytes in one male at 2500 ppm and pigmentation of the hepatocytes in both sexes at 500 and 2500 ppm. In the representative animals at 2500 ppm, the pigments of the hepatocytes showed positive reactions to the Schmorl method and Periodic acid-Schiff (PAS) reaction, and a weak positive reaction to the Hall method.

Based on the results described above, the NOAEL was estimated to be 100 ppm (equivalent to 2.92 mg/kg bw/day for males and 2.68 mg/kg bw/day for females) in this study.

In the 78-week carcinogenicity study in the mouse, benzpyrimoxan was administered to male and female mice orally through the diet at concentrations of 0, 80, 400, and 1500 (females) / 2000 ppm (males).

It was concluded that the dietary administration of benzpyrimoxan to CD-1 mice for 78 weeks at concentrations up to 2000 ppm in males and up to 1500 ppm in females (equivalent to 194.9 and 162.9 mg/kg bw/day, respectively) produced no evidence that benzpyrimoxan was carcinogenic in mice. Observed hepatocyte hypertrophy was considered an adaptive response to treatment while the presence of crystals in the urinary system and calculi in the gall bladder were attributed to excreted benzpyrimoxan and as there was no associated inflammation, the finding was considered to be most likely non-adverse. The combination of reduced body weight gain and hyperplasia in the gall bladder for males given 2000 ppm was considered an adverse effect and, consequently, the NOAEL in males was set at 400 ppm (equivalent to 39.9 mg/kg bw/day). There were no findings of toxicological significance in females and, consequently, the NOAEL in females was 1500 ppm (equivalent to 162.9 mg/kg bw/day).

In the rat combined chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity study, benzpyrimoxan was administered to male and female rats orally through the diet at concentrations of 0, 60, 300, and 1500 ppm for a period of 52 weeks for the chronic toxicity group, and for a period of 104 weeks for the carcinogenicity group.

In this study, there was no increase in the incidence of neoplastic lesions in any treated groups of either sex. Besides, there were no increases of rare types of tumors, earlier onset of spontaneous neoplasms, or other signs indicating carcinogenicity. Therefore, it was concluded that benzpyrimoxan technical grade showed no carcinogenic effect.

Benzpyrimoxan had effects on body weight, the liver, urinary system (kidney and/or urinary bladder) and several haematological parameters in both sexes treated at 1500 ppm in the carcinogenicity and/or chronic toxicity groups. Effects on food consumption and food efficiency in females at 1500 ppm in the carcinogenicity and chronic toxicity groups were also observed. The NOAEL was set at 300 ppm (equivalent to 11.7 mg/kg bw/day for males, and 14.7 mg/kg bw/day for females in the carcinogenicity group; equivalent to 13.9 mg/kg bw/day for males, and 17.5 mg/kg bw/day for females in the chronic toxicity group).

	6. Animal metabolism. Metabolism of benzpyrimoxan in rats was investigated as part of the absorption, metabolism, distribution, and excretion studies conducted with this compound. Benzpyrimoxan is rapidly absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract of rats. Radioactivity in organs and tissues declined rapidly with excretion into feces and urine. The major metabolites were formed by hydrolysis of the acetal moiety to form carboxylic acid or hydroxymethyl moiety, and hydroxylation and N-oxidation of pyrimidine ring. Various metabolites were produced with loss of pyrimidine or phenyl ring. There were no significant sex-related or dose-related difference in metabolic fate.

Metabolism of benzpyrimoxan was also investigated in studies conducted with lactating goats and laying hens. In both species, the majority of the administered radioactivity was excreted. The major metabolites were formed by hydrolysis of an acetal (R2C(OR')2) moiety of the test substance to form a hydroxymethyl (RCH2OH) moiety and its resulting carboxylic acid (RCOOH) moiety. Hydroxylation of the pyrimidine ring was also observed.

Results of the metabolism studies showed that metabolism of benzpyrimoxan is similar in rodent (rat), ruminant (goat), and poultry (hen). Therefore, no significant species-related difference in the metabolic profiles of benzpyrimoxan is expected.

	7. Metabolite toxicology. Toxicity of the metabolite NNI-1501-2-OH was evaluated in a bacterial reverse mutation test, an in vitro human lymphocyte micronucleus assay, and in a 90-day oral toxicity study in rats.

In the bacterial reverse mutation test, NNI-1501-2-OH was found to be negative for gene mutagenic activity. In the in vitro human lymphocyte micronucleus assay, NNI-1501-2-OH did not induce micronuclei in cultured human peripheral blood lymphocytes.

Subchronic toxicity of NNI-1501-2-OH was evaluated in rats in a 90-day study. NNI-1501-2-OH was administered in feed at concentrations of 0, 100, 300, 1000 and 3000 ppm for a period of 92 days. The NOAEL was considered to be 100 ppm (equivalent to 6.36 mg/kg bw/day) in male rats, and 300 ppm for females (equivalent to 22.8 mg/kg bw/day).

	8. Endocrine disruption. Benzpyrimoxan does not belong to a class of chemicals known as suspected of having effects on the endocrine system. There is no evidence in other relevant toxicity studies (e.g. sub-chronic and chronic toxicity, developmental toxicity and multi-generation reproductive studies) which would suggest that benzpyrimoxan has any endocrine disruptive potential.

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. Since the only proposed tolerance for benzpyrimoxan is on imported rice grain and there are no other existing or proposed U.S. registrations, the aggregate exposure and risk assessment was limited to dietary (food only) exposure and risk. Potential dietary exposure through drinking water or potential non-dietary exposures were not applicable.

Acute and chronic dietary exposure assessments were conducted using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model-Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID(TM), Version 4.02). The proposed definition of residue for risk assessment is the sum of benzpyrimoxan and NNI-1501-2-OH expressed as benzpyrimoxan. Both the acute and chronic dietary exposure evaluations were screening-level and assumed residue in rice grain at the proposed tolerance of 0.9 ppm together with the maximum residue level of NNI-1501-2-OH, expressed as benzpyrimoxan, and 100% crop treated.

	i. Food. Acute Exposure. Acute dietary risk was evaluated for all population subgroups based on an aPAD of 0.1 mg/kg bw/day. An acute reference dose (aRfD) of 0.1 mg/kg bw/day was based on a developmental toxicity study in rabbits based on a NOAEL of 10 mg/kg-bw/day with an uncertainly factor of 100X for intra- and inter-species variations. Based on no additional FQPA Safety Factor (1X), the aPAD is proposed at 0.1 mg/kg bw/day.

Exposure was expressed as a percent of the aPAD. The screening-level evaluation indicated acute dietary exposure and risk was <= 4.7% of the aPAD for the general population and all population subgroups at the 95th percentile of the exposure distribution. Dietary exposure was 1.4% of the aPAD for the general population. The population subgroup with highest dietary exposure was non-nursing infants with exposure at 4.7% of the aPAD

Chronic Exposure. Chronic dietary risk was evaluated for all population subgroups based on a cPAD of 0.026 mg/kg bw/day. A chronic reference dose (cRfD) of 0.026 mg/kg bw/day was based on a chronic toxicity study in dogs with a NOAEL of 2.68 mg/kg-bw/day and an uncertainly factor of 100Xfor intra- and inter-species variations. Based on no additional FQPA Safety Factor (1X), the aPAD is 0.1 mg/kg bw/day.

Exposure was expressed as a percent of the cPAD. The screening-level evaluation indicated chronic dietary exposure and risk was <= 4.0% of the cPAD for the general population and all population subgroups. Dietary exposure was 1.1% of the cPAD for the general population. The population subgroup with highest dietary exposure was non-nursing infants with exposure at 4.0% of the cPAD.

	ii. Drinking water. Since this will be an import tolerance only, and there are no other existing or proposed U.S. registrations, no drinking water exposures are anticipated.

	2. Non-dietary exposure. Since this will be an import tolerance only, and there are no other existing or proposed U.S. registrations, no non-dietary exposures are anticipated.

D. Cumulative Effects

	It is not necessary at this time to consider cumulative effects because there is no indication that toxic effects of benzpyrimoxan have a common mechanism of toxicity with those of any other chemical compounds, and benzpyrimoxan does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite that is also produced from other substances.

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. Since the only proposed tolerance for benzpyrimoxan is on imported rice grain and there are no other existing or proposed U.S. registrations, the aggregate exposure and risk assessment was limited to dietary (food only) exposure. Both acute and chronic dietary exposures were evaluated based on highly conservative screening-level assessments. Based on these conservative exposure assumptions, the assessments indicated that acute exposure would occupy 1.4% of the aPAD for the total U.S. population, and that chronic exposure would occupy 1.1% of the cPAD for the total U.S. population. Therefore, these assessments indicate there is reasonable certainty that no harm to the U.S. population will result from the proposed tolerance for benzpyrimoxan.

	2. Infants and children. Based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data, the lack of indication of increased prenatal or postnatal sensitivity, and the conservative exposure assessments, it is proposed that infants and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA Safety Factor (FQPA SF) were reduced to 1X. Therefore, an FQPA SF of 1X is proposed.

Both acute and chronic dietary exposures were evaluated based on highly conservative screening-level assessments. Among infants and children, the population subgroup with highest acute exposure was non-nursing infants with exposure at 4.7% of the aPAD. Non-nursing infants also had the highest chronic exposure with exposure at 4.0% of the cPAD. Therefore, these assessments indicate there is reasonable certainty that no harm to infants and children will result from the proposed tolerance for benzpyrimoxan.

F. International Tolerances

	Japan has established MRLs for benzpyrimoxan in/on rice grain and a number of animal commodities. There are currently no Codex MRLs; however, data and proposed MRLs for rice grain and animal commodities have been submitted for review.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 160 (Tuesday, August 18, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50876-50880]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17957]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0081]

Inspection, Repair and Maintenance; Inspector Qualifications;
Intermodal Association of North America (IANA) Application for an
Exemption

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
announces its decision to grant Intermodal Association of North
America's (IANA) application for a limited 5-year exemption to allow
individuals who complete a training program consistent with a set of
Intermodal Recommended Practices (IRPs) and associated requirements
that has been developed by IANA to be considered a qualified inspector
or qualified brake inspector for intermodal equipment (IME) under the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR), in lieu of having one
year of training or experience or a combination thereof prior to
becoming a certified inspector/brake inspector. The Agency has
determined that granting the exemption to allow individuals who
complete a performance-based training program consistent with the IRPs
and associated requirements developed by IANA, instead of the time-
based training and experience requirements specified in the FMCSRs,
would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than
the level of safety provided by the regulation.

DATES: This exemption is effective August 18, 2020 and ending August
18, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Luke Loy, Vehicle and Roadside
Operations Division, Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle Safety, MC-
PSV,

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001;<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments submitted to notice requesting public comments on the
exemption application, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit
Docket Operations, Room W12-140 on the ground level of the West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure
someone is there to help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or (202) 366-
9826 before visiting Docket Operations. The on-line Federal document
management system is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year.
The docket number is listed at the beginning of this notice.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from certain parts of the FMCSRs. FMCSA must publish a
notice of each exemption request in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the public an opportunity to
inspect the information relevant to the application, including any
safety analyses that have been conducted. The Agency must also provide
an opportunity for public comment on the request.
    The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted,
and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reasons for denying or granting the application
and, if granted, the name of the person or class of persons receiving
the exemption, and the regulatory provision from which the exemption is
granted. The notice must also specify the effective period and explain
the terms and conditions of the exemption. The exemption may be renewed
(49 CFR 381.300(b)).

IANA Application for Exemption

    IANA applied for an exemption that would allow individuals who
complete a training program consistent with a set of IRPs and
associated requirements developed by IANA to be considered (1) a
qualified inspector for the purpose of conducting periodic (annual)
inspections of IME under 49 CFR 396.17, and (2) a qualified brake
inspector under 49 CFR 396.25 for the purpose of conducting brake
system inspection, maintenance, service, or repair of IME. A copy of
the application is included in the docket referenced at the beginning
of this notice.
    The FMCSRs require individuals performing annual inspections of
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs), including IME, or inspections,
maintenance, repairs, or service to the brake systems on CMVs
(including IME) to be properly qualified to perform such inspections.
Under Sec. Sec.  396.19(a)(3)(ii) and 396.25(d)(3)(ii), an individual
who has training or experience or a combination thereof totaling at
least one year as outlined in those sections is considered to be
qualified to conduct those inspections.
    In its application, IANA states that:

. . . a performance-based approach to training can be as effective,
if not more so, than time-based training. An exemption to the
current time-based requirement is therefore warranted in order to
offer a performance-based alternative. The program that IANA has
developed, including broad-based input from experts across the
industry, coupled with real-world, operational experience, provides
exceptional guidance and instruction for inspectors to meet FMCSA's
ultimate goal, which is to have safe and roadworthy intermodal
equipment on the highways.

    Specifically, IANA's Mechanics Training Task Force, part of its
Maintenance & Repair Committee, has developed a series of five discrete
elements described in greater detail below that together will serve to
provide training developers and providers with the necessary content to
deliver comprehensive training programs and assessments.
    (1) IRPs. IANA has developed a group of 53 IRPs that are individual
procedures relating to the inspection, repair, or replacement of
components on IME. The IRPs have been packaged into a Guide titled
``The IANA Guide to Chassis Inspection and Repair'' that includes
additional resources in Appendices that support the IRPs. The IRPs have
been grouped into nine separate sections based principally on the
systems and components that exist on IME as follows: General Procedures
and Auxiliary Equipment; Electrical and Lamps; Tires and Wheels; Axles;
Couplers and Hitches; Frames; Suspensions; Brakes; and Welding/
Fabrication. Generally, each IRP includes:
     Background and Context. This section provides an
explanation of the need for the IRP and a brief overview of the
content.
     Terms and Definitions. This section contains a list of
specific terms and their meaning within the context of the IRP, over
and above those found in the Glossary (Appendix B of the Guide). It
also provides terms and definitions that are specific to the procedures
in the IRP.
     Recommended Tools, Supplies and Equipment. This section
lists the necessary items that should be available to mechanics in
performing the procedure in the IRP.
     Procedures. This section contains detailed, step-by-step
instructions for performing each specific procedure.
     Additional Information. This section lists resources that
are relevant to and further inform the content of the IRP.
    (2) Competency Documents. The Competency Documents are a set of 53
documents that are based on the IRPs, and that (a) include specific
statements that correspond to each individual IRP, and (b) outline the
specific knowledge and skills necessary for inspectors/mechanics to
possess in order to successfully execute the procedures outlined in
each IRP. The material provided in these Competency Documents serves to
assist training providers as the foundation for the development of the
training curriculum and content, as well as assisting in the
development and delivery of inspector knowledge and skills assessments.
    (3) Task Lists. Each Competency Document also includes a ``Task
List.'' The items in the Task Lists represent the practical elements
involved in assessing the proficiency of the inspectors/mechanics when
conducting the procedures outlined in each of the IRPs. In addition to
individuals successfully understanding the knowledge items outlined in
the Competency Documents, each individual undertaking the training also
needs to demonstrate proficiency in the items outlined in the Task
Lists. These demonstrations occur under the oversight of a qualified
inspector prior to the individual being able to perform the procedures
in the IRP going forward as a qualified inspector.
    (4) Question Matrix. IANA's Mechanics Training Working Group also
developed a matrix to identify the number of test questions to be
considered relative to each IRP when conducting assessments of an
individual's knowledge level. The matrix, when coupled with the
Competency Documents, forms the basis for developing test questions for
an individual's knowledge assessments. These assessments are to be used
in conjunction with modules in training courses. However, they will
also serve to assess an individual's knowledge

prior to taking training (e.g., for ``new'' inspectors/mechanics) and
to assist with gap analysis and identifying additional training needs
for the existing workforce of inspectors/mechanics.
    (5) Training Hours. While IANA believes that the overall program
should be primarily competency-based, IANA also recognizes that
temporal parameters must be established for the overall course
schedule. Deliberations within IANA's Maintenance & Repair Committee on
this point focused first on developing a range of time for full course
delivery on all 53 of the IRPs, from a minimum of 324 hours to a
maximum of 480 hours (inclusive of classroom and hands-on instruction).
This range was established based on the content as well as the level of
knowledge, proficiency, and experience of the inspector prior to taking
the course. Individuals having some prior level of experience and
competency would be on the lower end of the time scale, and those who
are new to the job would be on the high end of the scale. IANA also
estimated that approximately one-third (\1/3\) of the instruction
should be classroom-based, and two-thirds (\2/3\) of the instruction
should be laboratory/hands-on based. The Committee resolved that,
optimally, the course timing should be 480 hours for a new entrant to
the business.
    IANA states that ``. . . a mechanic who has successfully completed
a training program based on the IRPs developed through IANA will
possess the skills and knowledge to be a highly proficient and
efficient inspector and will not appreciably benefit (if at all) from
the current 12-month requirement.'' The exemption would apply to all
individuals who successfully complete a training program based on the
IRPs and associated requirements developed by IANA as described above.
IANA believes that granting the exemption to permit use of the IRP-
based training program curriculum would maintain a level of safety that
is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved without
the exemption, and that ``safety will ultimately be enhanced.''

Request for Comments

    FMCSA published a notice of the application in the Federal Register
on April 3, 2020, and asked for public comment (85 FR 19055). The
Agency received 20 comments, from the American Trucking Associations
(ATA), the American Association of Railroads (AAR), and 18 individuals.
    ATA commended IANA for taking time to develop IRPs consistent with
the needs of the intermodal sector of the trucking industry, and stated
that it ``supports this exemption request for FMCSA to allow intermodal
chassis mechanic training programs--consistent with IANA's IRPs--to be
able to certify students as qualified inspectors or brake inspectors
without having the required one year of training or experience.'' \1\
ATA stated that a technician shortage exists in the U.S. trucking
industry, and ``The trucking industry could reduce this workforce
shortage if FMCSA would allow: (1) students to complete training
programs from institutes that base curricula from qualified trade
organizations; and (2) permit self-certification by qualified training
institutes with programs specific to commercial vehicle inspections,
including brake system inspections.'' Additionally, ATA stated that
properly trained technicians detect, correct and prevent the
development of equipment failures, and ``The trucking industry could
decrease the vehicle OOS rate (decreasing vehicle downtime) while
improving traffic safety if FMCSA allowed industry recognized RP-based
training programs to equal the experience minimum.'' Finally, ATA
stated that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In supporting IANA's exemption request, ATA recommends FMCSA
work with its Technology & Maintenance Council to further apply
qualified training programs for all types of commercial vehicle
equipment so that the entire trucking industry and overall
transportation industry may benefit from industry recognized RP-
based training programs.

    One year of experience or training for a commercial vehicle
technician is arbitrary and can be misjudged. Fleets and service
providers in the trucking industry are diverse and can perform
business with their employees through multifaceted roles. For
example, new entrants to truck maintenance may have a job for more
than half the year to clean shop and move trucks around the yard. A
new employee may be hired to do one non-PMI [preventive maintenance
inspection] related job and be tasked with many PMI jobs 11 months
after being hired. Although ATA's experience with fleets and service
providers meet or exceed the FMCSRs for inspector qualifications
(e.g., an apprentice working alongside a PMI professional technician
for at least one year and routinely perfecting mistakes) this may
not be the case for all motor carriers. Focusing an industry
recognized RP-based training program on students/new techs is
imperative to the experience and training they would have before
starting their first real-world PMI. In addition to experienced and
well-trained new technician applicants, students would be qualified
well under the one-year requirement if FMCSA would exempt industry
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
recognized RP-based training programs.

    AAR supports ``IANA's proposed use of a modern, performance-based,
training program in lieu of FMCSA's existing one-year experience
requirement,'' and stated:

    A formalized education program could serve as a superior and
more efficient alternative to qualify an inspector than does the
one-year experience requirement in 49 CFR part 396. A graduate of
IANA's program must prove proficiency and knowledge by demonstrating
the skills required for each job he or she performs. FMCSA should
allow the use of industry-developed best practices in the form of
the IRPs developed by IANA in this matter to help to ensure
consistent standards are met in qualifying chassis inspectors, and
that the potential to improve safety across the intermodal industry
is realized.

    Eighteen individuals provided comments regarding the IANA
application. One commenter stated that Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) regulations ``allow aspiring aircraft mechanics a path to
certification outside of strictly practical (i.e. on the job)
experience by graduating from an FAA-approved aviation maintenance
technician program--thereby gaining certification and doing the same
work as their strictly on-the-job-experienced counterparts up to two
years sooner.'' The commenter noted that if this alternative approach
works for the FAA, ``it should [work] for the FMCSA given the community
of safety-minded intermodal industry experts behind this request for
temporary exemption.'' Several commenters noted that mechanics who
complete the IANA training and certification process will be far more
reliable and consistent than someone who simply works for 1 year in a
repair environment. Commenters noted that training programs based on
the IANA IRPs will be heavily focused on hands-on training and
assessments that standardize competencies and provide an expectation of
the skills required for the certification. Commenters also noted that
experience-based learning is continuous and adds value to competencies,
but stated that mechanics working without the foundation of an
education regarding the equipment--specifically on IME--cannot ensure
the safety or standard levels of performance of that equipment.
Multiple commenters believe that with a combination of hands-on
training and a dedicated training program, a technician can become
competent and thorough within a much shorter time than the 1 year of
training and/or experience required by the FMCSRs. One commenter noted
that a validation of a mechanic's abilities is much safer than an
arbitrary waiting period (without dedicated training and an evaluation
of that mechanic's abilities).

    One commenter did not support the IANA application, stating ``There
exists no data suggesting that Intermodal Association of North America,
or anyone for that matter, has developed a miraculous training program
that somehow, is able to improve upon and replace 12-months of actual
real-life work experience. Common sense and logic tells us that any
training program that claims to replace 12-months of real-life, hands-
on work experience with an unspecified amount of time in their vague
`training program' is fraudulent.'' Other commenters stated that the
current requirement that an individual have a combination of training
and/or experience that totals at least 1 year before being considered
qualified should be retained, and that the 1-year time period is
necessary to ensure that inspectors fully understand the specifics of
the equipment and the tasks associated with inspecting the equipment.
One commenter stated that the application should not be granted because
brake violations continue to be some of the most often cited violations
during inspections, and as such, there needs to be additional focus
regarding the fundamental operation of brake systems from a training
and continuous education standpoint.

FMCSA Decision

    The FMCSA has evaluated the IANA application, and the comments
received. For the reasons discussed below, FMCSA has determined that
granting the exemption to allow individuals who successfully complete a
performance-based training program consistent with the IRPs and
associated requirements developed by IANA, instead of the time-based
training and experience requirements specified in the FMCSRs, would
likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the
level of safety provided by the regulation.
    In 2015, IANA established a Mechanics Training Task Force as part
of its Maintenance & Repair Committee. As an initial step, the Task
Force evaluated the processes necessary for the inspection and repair
of intermodal equipment, and developed recommended practices and
training for the mechanics who inspect and work on the equipment. These
recommendations were based on IANA's analysis of FMCSA inspection data
for intermodal equipment over a 5-year period that identified specific
vehicle components that routinely are the subject of out-of-service
violations.
    IANA stated that the goal of the Task Force was to develop
processes and procedures to assist the industry in complying with the
requirements in part 393, part 396, and Appendix G relating to
intermodal equipment. Specifically, the Task Force developed (1) a
framework for the development of recommended practices for the
inspection and repair of IME, (2) a set of IRPs to guide the inspection
and repair of IME, and (3) a training methodology and set of guidelines
that increases and enhances the skills of an individual in the
inspection and repair of IME. The Task Force included representation
from all key stakeholder groups, and developed the work product as
outlined in the three areas discussed above over the course of 3 years.
IANA's Maintenance & Repair Committee, which includes additional
stakeholder representatives from across the industry, ultimately
reviewed and approved the Task Force's work product.
    FMCSA has reviewed the IANA Guide that includes the 53 individual
IRPs and associated resources, along with the Competency Documents,
Task Lists, and Question Matrix that together establish the framework
for the training program. In addition, the Maintenance & Repair
Committee determined that inspectors/mechanics need at least 480 hours
of training on the materials discussed above, with approximately one-
third of the instruction classroom-based and approximately two-thirds
of the instruction laboratory/hands-on based. FMCSA believes that an
individual who successfully completes a training program consistent
with the IANA IRPs and associated requirements will possess the skills
and knowledge to be a highly proficient and efficient inspector,
without the need to have a minimum of 1 year of training or experience
or a combination thereof. FMCSA agrees that the establishment of
recommended inspection and repair practices and training guidelines
through a program based on the IANA IRPs and associated requirements
will have a positive impact on the safety and roadworthiness of IME,
and by extension, the traveling public.
    FMCSA acknowledges the commenters who did not support the IANA
application, many of whom simply stated that they believe the
requirement for individuals to have at least one year of experience
and/or training is the minimum needed to ensure that those individuals
have the necessary skills to properly conduct inspections of intermodal
equipment. While these commenters contend that eliminating the 1-year
training and experience requirement will result in unqualified
individuals being able to conduct inspections of intermodal equipment,
none presented any specific concerns regarding the detailed and
comprehensive IANA IRPs or associated requirements developed by the
IANA IRP Mechanics Training Task Force. As noted above, and based on a
review of the comprehensive materials that have been developed by IANA
following a detailed analysis of FMCSA intermodal equipment inspection
data, FMCSA believes that a performance-based approach to training can
be as effective as, if not more so than, training that is strictly
time-based.

Terms and Conditions for the Exemption

    The Agency hereby grants the exemption for a 5-year period,
beginning August 18, 2020 and ending August 18, 2025. During the
temporary exemption period, individuals who successfully complete a
training program consistent with (1) a set of 53 IRPs that have been
developed by IANA and (2) the Competency Documents, Task Lists, and
Question Matrices that have been developed by IANA for each of the 53
IRPs, and that have completed a minimum of 480 hours of training on
those materials will be considered to be (1) a qualified inspector for
the purpose of conducting periodic (annual) inspections of IME under 49
CFR 396.17, and (2) a qualified brake inspector under 49 CFR 396.25 for
the purpose of conducting brake system inspection, maintenance,
service, or repair of IME. FMCSA emphasizes that the exemption is
limited to individuals performing periodic inspections of, and brake
system inspection, maintenance, service, or repair of, IME, and does
not eliminate the requirement under Sec. Sec.  396.19(a)(3)(ii) and
396.25(d)(3)(ii) that individuals have at least 1 year of training or
experience or a combination thereof to be qualified to conduct periodic
inspections of or brake system inspection, maintenance, service, or
repair on commercial vehicles other than IME.
    The exemption will be valid for 5 years unless rescinded earlier by
FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) Individuals, motor
carriers, or intermodal equipment providers (IEP) fail to comply with
the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has
resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was
granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent
with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b).
    Interested parties possessing information demonstrating that
periodic inspections or brake system inspection, maintenance, service,
or repair of IME conducted by inspectors that have been

determined to be qualified under the terms and conditions of this
exemption do not result in the requisite statutory level of safety
should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any such
information and, if safety is being compromised or if the continuation
of the exemption is not consistent with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315(b), will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption.

Preemption

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31313(d), as implemented by 49 CFR
381.600, during the period this exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation applicable to interstate commerce that
conflicts with or is inconsistent with this exemption with respect to a
firm or person operating under the exemption. States may, but are not
required to, adopt the same exemption with respect to operations in
intrastate commerce.

James A. Mullen,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-17957 Filed 8-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


the NAAQS and reflect all the motor vehicle control measures relied
upon for the maintenance demonstration.
    The EPA's process for determining adequacy of a budget consists of
three basic steps: (1) Notifying the public of a SIP submittal; (2)
providing the public the opportunity to comment on the budget during a
public comment period; and (3) making a finding of adequacy or
inadequacy. The process for determining the adequacy of a submitted
budget is codified at 40 CFR 93.118(f). The EPA can notify the public
by either posting an announcement that the EPA has received SIP budgets
on the EPA's adequacy website (40 CFR 93.118(f)(1)), or via a Federal
Register notice of proposed rulemaking when the EPA reviews the
adequacy of an maintenance plan budget simultaneously with its review
and action on the SIP submittal itself (40 CFR 93.118(f)(2)).
    The Imperial PM10 Plan includes budgets for direct
PM10 for the attainment year (2016) and the last year of the
maintenance plan (2030). The applicable source categories included in
the budgets include vehicle emissions (including exhaust, brake wear,
and tire wear), and entrained dust from vehicle travel over paved and
unpaved roads. With respect to unpaved road dust, the budgets include
only those emissions generated by vehicle travel over city- and county-
owned unpaved roads, not canal roads, farm roads or those owned by the
U.S. Bureau of Land Management or the U.S. Forest Service. In addition,
the budgets apply to the entire County, including the portion of the
County that lies outside of the PM10 nonattainment area.\99\
As noted previously, an estimated 95% of the vehicle activity within
the County occurs within the PM10 nonattainment area, and
thus, the budgets reasonably correspond to the nonattainment area even
though they are county-wide values. The 2016 and 2030 annual average
day conformity budgets for PM10 are provided in Table 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ The Imperial PM10 plan (at 4-6) indicates that
the budgets are derived from PM10 emissions estimates and
projections within the PM10 nonattainment area rather
than the entire County. However, we understand that the budgets
reflect county-wide emissions estimates and projections. The county-
wide basis for the budgets does not, however, affect the geographic
area for which transportation conformity determinations must be made
with respect to PM10. The applicable geographic area for
such determinations remains the Imperial Valley Planning Area
portion of Imperial County.

    Table 5--Transportation Conformity Budgets for the PM10 NAAQS in
                             Imperial County
                 [PM10 tpd, annual average, county-wide]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Source                        2016            2030
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tire Wear, Brake Wear and Exhaust.......             0.4             0.5
Paved Road Dust.........................             1.2             1.5
Unpaved City-County Road Dust...........            18.4            16.8
                                         -------------------------------
    Total...............................            20.0            18.8
Motor Vehicle Emission Budget \a\.......              20              19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Rounded up to the nearest integer.
Source: Imperial PM10 Plan, Table 4-5.

    CARB developed the on-road mobile portion of the emissions
inventory for the maintenance plan using California's on-road mobile
source emission projection model, EMFAC2014, and vehicle activity data
provided by SCAG from its 2016 RTP/SCS. The EMFAC2014 model calculated
tire wear, brake wear, and exhaust emissions. Paved road dust emissions
were estimated using AP-42 with California-specific silt loading
data.\100\ The unpaved road dust emissions were estimated using CARB's
methodology 7.10, updated in 2012 for non-farm roads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ AP-42 is an EPA document that includes a compilation of
emission factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the March 10, 2006 final Transportation Conformity
rulemaking, the conformity rule does not include an exception for
PM10 for paved and unpaved road dust emissions to be
determined significant, like the exception for such emissions in
PM2.5 analyses in 40 CFR 93.102(b)(3). The EPA intends for
road dust emissions to be included in all conformity analyses of direct
PM10 emissions because fugitive dust from roadways and other
sources dominate PM10 emissions inventories. The budgets in
the Imperial PM10 Plan, therefore, include paved and unpaved
road emissions.
    Regional PM10 emissions analyses for transportation
conformity determinations in PM10 nonattainment and
maintenance areas must account for highway and transit project
construction-related fugitive PM10 emissions if the control
strategy or maintenance plan identifies such emissions as a contributor
to the nonattainment problem, but are not required to do so if such
emissions are not identified as a contributor to the nonattainment
problem.101 102 Emissions estimates developed for the
Imperial PM10 Plan show that fugitive PM10
emissions from highway and transit project construction represent
approximately 0.2% and 0.3% of the total annual-average daily
PM10 emissions in 2016 and 2030, respectively.\103\ Based on
these emissions estimates, the Imperial PM10 Plan concludes
that fugitive PM10 emissions from highway and transit
project construction are not a contributor to the nonattainment problem
and thus need not be accounted for in regional emissions analyses for
transportation conformity determinations made for the Imperial
PM10 nonattainment area. Consequently, the budgets in the
Imperial PM10 Plan do not reflect highway or transit project
construction-related fugitive dust.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ 40 CFR 93.122(e).
    \102\ Fugitive PM10 emissions associated with road
and transit construction are not required to be included in
conformity unless the state identifies construction-related fugitive
dust as a contributor to the nonattainment problem per 93.122(e).
    \103\ Imperial PM10 Plan, Table 4-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We evaluated the budgets against our adequacy criteria in 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4) and (5) as part of our review of the budget's
approvability and expect to complete the adequacy review of the budgets
concurrent with our final action on the Imperial PM10 Plan.
The EPA is not required under its transportation conformity rule to
find budgets

adequate prior to proposing approval of them.\104\ Today, the EPA is
announcing that the adequacy process for these budgets begins, and the
public has 30 days to comment on their adequacy, per the transportation
conformity rule at 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2)(i) and (ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ Under the transportation conformity rule, the EPA may
review the adequacy of submitted budgets simultaneously with the
EPA's approval or disapproval of the submitted control strategy or
maintenance plan. 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As documented in the separate memorandum included in the docket for
this rulemaking, we preliminarily conclude that the budgets in the
Imperial PM10 Plan meet each adequacy criterion.\105\ While
adequacy and approval are two separate actions, reviewing the budgets
in terms of the adequacy criteria informs the EPA's decision to propose
to approve the budgets. We have completed our detailed review of the
Imperial PM10 Plan and are proposing herein to approve the
maintenance plan including the demonstration of maintenance of the
PM10 NAAQS in the area through year 2030. We have also
reviewed the budgets in the Imperial PM10 Plan and found
that they are consistent with the maintenance demonstration for which
we are proposing approval, are clearly identified and precisely
quantified, are based on control measures that have already been
adopted and implemented, and meet all other applicable statutory and
regulatory requirements including the adequacy criteria in 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4) and (5). Moreover, we agree with the conclusion in the
Imperial PM10 Plan that highway and transit project
construction-related PM10 emissions are not a contributor to
the nonattainment problem in the Imperial PM10 nonattainment
area and need not be accounted for in regional emissions analyses for
transportation conformity determinations for this area. For these
reasons, the EPA proposes to approve the 2016 and 2030 motor vehicle
emissions budgets in the Imperial PM10 Plan. At the point
when we either finalize the adequacy process or approve the budgets as
proposed (whichever occurs first; note that they could also occur
concurrently per 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2)(iii)), the budgets must be used by
the SCAG (i.e., the MPO for this area) for transportation conformity
determinations for the Imperial PM10 nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ Memorandum dated November 13, 2019, from Karina O'Connor
(EPA), to Rulemaking Docket ID EPA-R09-OAR-2019-0654, Subject:
``Adequacy Documentation for Plan Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in
October 2018 Imperial PM10 Plan.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The transportation conformity rule allows us to limit the approval
of budgets, and CARB requested that we limit the duration of our
approval of the budgets in the Imperial PM10 Plan to the
period before the effective date of the EPA's adequacy finding for any
subsequently submitted budgets.106 107 However, we will
consider the State's request to limit an approval of its budgets only
if the request includes the following elements: \108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ 40 CFR 93.118(e)(1).
    \107\ Letter dated February 6, 2019, from Richard W. Corey,
Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, to Michael
Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA, Region IX.
    \108\ 67 FR 69141 (November 15, 2002), limiting our prior
approval of budgets in certain California SIPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     An acknowledgement and explanation as to why the budgets
under consideration have become outdated or deficient;
     A commitment to update the budgets as part of a
comprehensive SIP update; and
     A request that the EPA limit the duration of its approval
to the time when new budgets have been found to be adequate for
transportation conformity purposes.
    Because CARB's request does not address these elements, we cannot
at this time propose to limit the duration of our approval of the
submitted budgets. In order to limit the approval, we would need the
information described above in order to determine whether such
limitation is reasonable and appropriate in this case. If CARB provides
the necessary information, we intend to review it and take appropriate
action. If we propose to limit the duration of our approval of the
budgets in the Imperial PM10 Plan, we will provide the
public an opportunity to comment. The duration of the approval of the
budgets, however, would not be limited until we complete such a
rulemaking.
6. Conclusion
    Based on the review presented above of the various elements of the
maintenance plan portion of the Imperial PM10 Plan, we are
proposing to approve the Imperial PM10 Plan as a revision to
the California SIP. In doing so, we find that the Imperial
PM10 Plan, submitted by CARB by letter dated February 6,
2019, satisfies the requirements of section 175A of the Act. If
finalized as proposed, our approval of the Imperial PM10
Plan will satisfy the criterion for redesignation under CAA section
107(d)(3)(E)(iv).

V. Proposed Actions and Request for Public Comment

    Under CAA section 110(k)(3), and for the reasons set forth above,
the EPA is proposing to approve the Imperial PM10 Plan
submitted by CARB by letter dated February 6, 2019, as a revision to
the California SIP. In so doing, the EPA is proposing to approve the
BACM demonstration and attainment inventory included as part of the
Imperial PM10 Plan as meeting the requirements of CAA
sections 189(b)(1)(B) and 172(c)(3), respectively. We are proposing to
approve the maintenance demonstration and contingency provisions as
meeting all applicable requirements for maintenance plans and related
contingency provisions in CAA section 175A. The EPA is also proposing
to approve the motor vehicle emissions budgets for 2016 and 2030 (shown
in Table 5 above) for transportation conformity purposes because we
find they meet all applicable criteria for such budgets including the
adequacy criteria under 40 CFR 93.118(e).
    In addition, under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D), we are proposing to
approve the state's request to redesignate the Imperial PM10
nonattainment area to attainment for the PM10 NAAQS. We are
doing so based on our conclusion that the area has met, or will meet as
part of this action, all the criteria for redesignation under CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E). More specifically, we propose to find the
following: That the Imperial PM10 nonattainment area has
attained the PM10 standard based on the most recent three-
year period (2016-2018) of quality-assured, certified, and complete
PM10 data; that relevant portions of the California SIP are,
or will be as part of this action, fully approved; that the improvement
in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in
emissions; that California has met all requirements applicable to the
Imperial PM10 nonattainment area with respect to section 110
and part D of the CAA if we finalize our approvals of the BACM
demonstration and the attainment inventory in the Imperial
PM10 Plan, as proposed herein; and that the Imperial
PM10 nonattainment area will have a fully approved
maintenance plan meeting the requirements of CAA section 175A if we
finalize our approval of it, also as proposed herein.
    In connection with the above proposed approvals and determinations,
and as authorized under CAA section 189(e), we are proposing to
determine that PM10 precursors do not contribute
significantly to PM10 exceedances in the Imperial
PM10 nonattainment area based

on the information included in Appendix A of the Imperial
PM10 Plan.
    We are soliciting comments on these proposed actions. We will
accept comments from the public on this proposal for 30 days following
publication of this proposal in the Federal Register and will consider
these comments before taking final action.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E)
are actions that affect the status of a geographic area and do not
impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those
imposed by state law. Redesignation to attainment does not in and of
itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the
applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have
been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions
of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40
CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to
approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA.
Accordingly, these proposed actions merely propose to approve a State
plan and redesignation request as meeting federal requirements and do
not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
For these reasons, these proposed actions:
     Are 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);
     Are not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are 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.);
     Do 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);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not an economically significant regulatory action
based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1987);
     Are not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Do not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the State plan for which the EPA is proposing approval
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 proposed rule, as
it relates to the maintenance plan, does not have tribal implications
and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000). However, the proposed redesignation would apply to
Indian country within the nonattainment area. In those areas of Indian
country, the proposed redesignation action will not result in the
relaxation of measures and programs currently in place to protect air
quality and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The EPA has invited the Torres
Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians and the Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Indian Reservation, who have lands within the Imperial PM10
nonattainment area, to consult on today's proposed action.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.

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

    Dated: March 26, 2020.
John Busterud,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2020-06818 Filed 4-1-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 93 (Friday, May 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28020-28022]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11737]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PF10-20-000]

Sawgrass Storage LLC; Supplemental Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Planned Sawgrass Storage Project and
Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

    As previously noticed on August 6, 2010, and supplemented herein,
the staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) is preparing an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts that could result from the
construction and operation of the Sawgrass Storage Project. The project
is planned by Sawgrass Storage LLC (Sawgrass) to provide flexible
storage services on various interstate and intrastate pipeline systems,
and provide supplemental natural gas supply during periods of peak
natural gas usage. The project would be located in Lincoln and Union
Parishes, Louisiana. 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 Supplemental Notice of Intent (NOI) announces the opening of
an additional scoping period the Commission will use to gather input
from the public and interested agencies on the revised project.
Specifically, Sawgrass has revised its project to eliminate
approximately 20.5 miles of pipeline, a second compressor station, 8
pipeline interconnects, and 3 mainline valves, which were included in
its original project design. Your input on the revised project will
help determine what issues need to be evaluated in the EA. Please note
that this additional scoping period will close on June 6, 2011.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. The mailing list includes landowners who
would be affected by Sawgrass' revised project and those that would no
longer be affected by the reduced project facilities. State and local
government representatives are asked to notify their constituents of
the new planned project and encourage them to comment on their areas of
concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted
by a pipeline company representative about the acquisition of an
easement to construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities.
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 pipeline 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?'' is available for
viewing on the FERC Web site (http://www.ferc.gov). 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.

Summary of the Planned Project

    Sawgrass plans to request authorization to construct and operate an
underground natural gas storage facility with a working gas capacity of
30 billion cubic feet.
    The Sawgrass Storage Project would now consist of the following
facilities:
     A storage reservoir in a depleted gas production field;
     5 wellpads with up to 16 horizontally drilled wells;
     5 observation wells;
     Approximately 5.5 miles of 20- and 24-inch-diameter
gathering pipeline;
     A compressor station with approximately 19,000 horsepower
of compression;
     Approximately 13.8 miles of 30-inch-diameter mainline
pipeline;
     2 mainline valves;
     An interconnect with the existing Midcontinent Express
Pipeline interstate pipeline system; and
     Appurtenant facilities.
    Sawgrass' proposed storage field would essentially remain the same
as originally proposed, along with the first approximately 10 miles of
30-inch-diameter mainline pipeline. There is approximately 3.8 miles of
additional 30-inch-diameter pipeline that was re-routed from the
original alignment and would affect new landowners. Sawgrass has
eliminated approximately 13.7 miles of 30-inch-diameter mainline
pipeline, both 24-inch-diameter header pipelines, and the second
compressor station located along the 24-inch-diameter header pipeline.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix
1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to
all those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
http://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

    Construction of the planned facilities would disturb about 409.4
acres of land for the aboveground facilities and the pipelines.
Following construction, about 156.1 acres would be maintained for
permanent operation of the project's facilities; the remaining acreage
would be restored and allowed to revert to former uses.

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
\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 supplemental NOI, the Commission requests
public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA
regarding the revised project. All comments received will be considered
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;
     Air quality and noise;
     Endangered and threatened species; and
     Public safety.
    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 an
application is filed with the FERC. As part of our pre-filing review,
we have contacted federal and state agencies to discuss their
involvement in the scoping process and the preparation of the EA.
Representatives from the FERC also participated in public open houses
sponsored by Sawgrass in the project area in July 2010, to explain the
environmental review process to interested stakeholders.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be presented in the EA.
The EA will be published and mailed to the entities on our mailing list
(see discussion on how to remain on our list under Environmental
Mailing List below). A 30-day comment period will be allotted for
review of the EA. 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 on page 5.
    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 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 used our original notice, issued August 6, 2010,
to initiate consultation with the Louisiana State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO), and to solicit its views and those of other government
agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's
potential effects on historic properties.\3\ We will define the
project-specific Area of Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with
the SHPO 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 for
this project will document our findings on the impacts on historic
properties and summarize the status of consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 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 National Register for 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. If you previously
submitted comments in response to the original notice, you do not need
to re-submit those comments. Your comments will be considered in our
environmental analysis. 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 June 6, 2011.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the
project docket number (PF10-20-000) 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 http://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 http;//
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;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; local libraries and newspapers; and anyone who
submits comments on the project. 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, who own homes within certain distances of
aboveground facilities, and those that would no longer be affected by
the revised pipeline route and second compressor station. 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
you previously returned an Information Request from the initial notice
or submitted a comment on the project, you are and will remain on our
mailing list.
    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 Sawgrass 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. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are
included in the User's 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 a
formal application for the project is filed with the Commission.

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 (http://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., PF10-20). 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 http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.
    Public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's
calendar located at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx
along with other related information.
    Finally, to request additional information on the project or to
provide comments directly to the project sponsor, you can contact
Sawgrass directly by calling toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Also, Sawgrass
has established a Web site at http://www.sawgrassgas.com. The Web site
includes a description of the project, an overview map of the planned
facilities, and links to related documents. Sawgrass will update the
Web site as the environmental review of the project proceeds.

    Dated: May 6, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-11737 Filed 5-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 30, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 59)]
[Notices]
[Page 14119-14121]
[DOCID:fr30mr09-38]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

March 23, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC09-60-000.
    Applicants: Midland Cogeneration Venture Limited Partnership.
    Description: Application of Midland Cogeneration Venture Limited
Partnership for Section 203 Authorization for the Disposition of
Facilities and Request for Expedited Consideration and Confidential
Treatment.
    Filed Date: 03/20/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090320-5085.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 3, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER98-2640-031; ER01-205-033.
    Applicants: Northern States Power Company-Wisconsin; Xcel Energy
Services Inc.
    Description: Errata to Market-based Rate Authorization Triennial
Market Power Analysis of Xcel Energy Services Inc. for Northern States
Power Company (Minnesota) and Northern States Power Company
(Wisconsin).
    Filed Date: 03/20/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090320-5013.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 10, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-629-005.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corporation
submits revisions to its Small Generator

Interconnection Procedures in compliance with the Commission's 3/3/09
Order.
    Filed Date: 03/20/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090323-0100.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 10, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-630-004.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corporation et
al. submit revisions to their pro forma Small Generator Interconnection
Agreement.
    Filed Date: 03/20/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090323-0099.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 10, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-486-001.
    Applicants: Ashtabula Wind, LLC.
    Description: Ashtabula Wind, LLC submits their Common Facilities
Agreement with Otter Tail Corporation for the OTP Project dated 10/9/08
designated as Rate Schedule FERC 1, in compliance with FERC's 2/19/09
Order.
    Filed Date: 03/20/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090323-0101.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 10, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-704-001.
    Applicants: Carolina Power & Light Company.
    Description: Carolina Power & Light Company submits the clean as
well redlined copies of the corrected 2/10/09 filing of a Standard
Large Generator Interconnection Agreement with North Carolina Electric
Member Corp.
    Filed Date: 03/19/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090320-0090.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 9, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-759-001.
    Applicants: E. ON U.S. LLC.
    Description: E.ON U.S. submits removal of SPP as signatory to the
Agreements does not affect the division of functional responsibilities
under the ITO agreement etc.
    Filed Date: 03/17/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090317-0266.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 7, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-864-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.; New England Power Pool.
    Description: ISO New England Inc and New England Power Pool submits
Installed Capacity Requirements for the 2009/2010 Capability Year.
    Filed Date: 03/19/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090320-0092.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 9, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-865-000.
    Applicants: Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC.
    Description: Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC request for
authorization to make wholesale power sales to Potomac Edison Co
pursuant to a master Full Requirements Service Agreement dated 10/22/08
etc.
    Filed Date: 03/19/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090320-0094.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 9, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-866-000.
    Applicants: Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC.
    Description: Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC request
authorization to make wholesale power sales to Potomac Edison Company
pursuant to the terms of a master Full Requirements Service Agreement
etc.
    Filed Date: 03/19/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090320-0093.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 9, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-867-000.
    Applicants: Carolina Power & Light Company.
    Description: Carolina Power and Light Co. submits a Network
Integration Transmission Service and Network Operating Agreement.
    Filed Date: 03/20/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090323-0036.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 10, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-868-000.
    Applicants: WSPP Inc.
    Description: WSPP Inc submits revised pages to the WSPP Agreement
to incorporate a cost-based Rate Schedule 6 into the Agreement pursuant
to the Commission's 3/3/09 Order.
    Filed Date: 03/20/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090323-0102.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 10, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-869-000.
    Applicants: Ameren Services Company.
    Description: Central Illinois Public Service Company et al. submits
an executed service agreement for Wholesale Distribution Service with
Illinois Municipal Electric Agency etc.
    Filed Date: 03/20/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090323-0103.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 10, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-870-000.
    Applicants: Ameren Energy Marketing Company.
    Description: Ameren Energy Marketing Company submits amended sheets
to its Market-Based Rate Tariff, effective 6/1/09.
    Filed Date: 03/20/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090323-0104.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 10, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-871-000.
    Applicants: Falesafe, Inc.
    Description: Portland General Electric Company submits Fale-Safe's
First Revised Rate Schedule FERC 1, a Long Term Power Sale Agreement
with San Diego Gas & Electric Company.
    Filed Date: 03/23/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090323-0111.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-872-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submits Second Revised Sheet 362 to FERC Electric Tariff, Fourth
Revised Volume 1 effective 5/19/09.
    Filed Date: 03/20/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090323-0105.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 10, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-873-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.; New England Power Pool
    Description: ISO New England Inc & the New England Power Pool
submits Third Revised Sheet 7245 et al. to FERC Electric Tariff 3 et
al. effective 7/1/09.
    Filed Date: 03/20/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090323-0106.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 10, 2009.

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

    Docket Numbers: ES09-13-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection L.L.C. supplements its section 204
application.
    Filed Date: 03/20/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090320-5076.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 30, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ES09-14-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection L.L.C. submits supplemental
Information to its January 30, 2009 application.
    Filed Date: 03/20/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090320-5077.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 30, 2009.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following open access
transmission tariff filings:

    Docket Numbers: OA08-19-001; OA08-63-001.
    Applicants: Ohio Valley Electric Corporation.

    Description: OATT of Ohio Valley Electric Corporation.
    Filed Date: 03/20/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090320-5028.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 10, 2009.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-6980 Filed 3-27-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 138 (Friday, July 17, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43630-43631]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15434]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-154, OMB Control No. 3235-0122]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Rule 17a-10

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in Rule 17a-10, Report of
Revenue and Expenses (17 CFR 240.17a-10), under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) (``Exchange Act''). The Commission
plans to submit this existing collection of information to the Office
of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    The primary purpose of Rule 17a-10 is to obtain the economic and
statistical data necessary for an ongoing analysis of the securities
industry. Paragraph (a)(1) of Rule 17a-10 generally requires broker-
dealers that are exempted from the requirement to file monthly and
quarterly reports pursuant to paragraph (a) of Exchange Act Rule 17a-5
(17 CFR 240.17a-5) to file with the Commission the Facing Page, a
Statement of Income (Loss), and balance sheet from Part IIA of Form X-
17A-5 \1\ (17 CFR 249.617), and Schedule I of Form X-17A-5 not later
than 17 business days after the end of each calendar year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Form X-17A-5 is the Financial and Operational Combined
Uniform Single Report (``FOCUS Report''), which is used by broker-
dealers to provide certain required information to the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (a)(2) of Rule 17a-10 requires a broker-dealer subject to
Rule 17a-5(a) to submit Schedule I of Form X-17A-5 with its Form X-17A-
5 for the calendar quarter ending December 31 of each year. The burden
associated with filing Schedule I of Form X-17A-5 is accounted for in
the PRA filing associated with Rule 17a-5.
    Paragraph (b) of Rule 17a-10 provides that the provisions of
paragraph (a) do not apply to members of national securities exchanges
or registered national securities associations that maintain records
containing the information required by Form X-17A-5 and which transmit
to the Commission copies of the records pursuant to a plan which has
been declared effective by the Commission.
    The Commission staff estimates that approximately 46 broker-dealers
will spend an average of 12 hours per year complying with Rule 17a-10.
Thus, the total compliance burden is estimated to be approximately 552
hours per year.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's

estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: David Bottom, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o
Cynthia Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: July 13, 2020.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2020-15434 Filed 7-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P