[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 130 (Monday, July 8, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40780-40781]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16481]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange

Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, July 10, 2013 at
4:00 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has
certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the
scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Gallagher, as duty officer, voted to consider the
items listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be:
    institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    adjudicatory matters; and
    other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the
Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 3, 2013.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-16481 Filed 7-3-13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 216 (Thursday, November 7, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60087-60090]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24349]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0236; FRL-10001-87]

N-Methylpyrrolidone (NMP); Draft Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) Risk Evaluation and TSCA Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals
(SACC) Meeting; Notice of Availability, Public Meeting, and Request for
Comment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing the availability of and soliciting public
comment on the draft Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) risk
evaluation of N-Methylpyrrolidone (NMP). The purpose of the risk
evaluation process under TSCA is to determine, upon issuance of a final
risk evaluation, whether a chemical substance presents an unreasonable
risk of injury to health or the environment under the conditions of
use, including an unreasonable risk to a relevant potentially exposed
or susceptible subpopulation. EPA is also submitting the same document
to the TSCA Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC) for peer
review and is announcing that there will be an in-person public meeting
of the TSCA SACC to consider and review the draft risk evaluation.
Preceding the in-person meeting, there will be a preparatory virtual
public meeting for the panel to consider the scope and clarity of the
draft charge questions for the peer review.

DATES:
    Virtual Meeting: The preparatory virtual meeting will be held on
November 12, 2019, from 1:00 p.m. to approximately 4:00 p.m. (EST). You
must register online on or before November 12, 2019, to receive the
webcast meeting link and audio teleconference information. Submit your
written comments for the preparatory virtual meeting, or request time
to present oral comments, on or before 10:00 a.m. on November 12, 2019.
    In-Person Meeting: The in-person meeting will be held on December
5-6, 2019, from 8:00 a.m. to approximately 6:00 p.m. (EST) on the first
day, and 8:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on the second day. Any comments
submitted on the draft risk evaluation on or before November 26, 2019,
will be provided to the SACC for their consideration before the
meeting. Comments received after November 26, 2019, and prior to the
oral public comment period during the meeting will be available to the
SACC for their consideration during the meeting. Please submit requests
to present oral comments during the in-person meeting on or before
December 3, 2019, to be included on the meeting agenda. All comments
received by the end of the comment period will be considered by EPA.
    Comments: All comments on the draft risk evaluation must be
received on or before January 6, 2020.
    For additional instructions, see Unit III. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.

ADDRESSES:
    Virtual Meeting: Please visit http://www.epa.gov/tsca-peer-review
to register.
    In-Person Meeting: The in-person meeting will be held at the Hyatt
Regency Crystal City, 2799 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
Additional meeting information can be found on the TSCA SACC website at
http://www.epa.gov/tsca-peer-review.

    Comments: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0236 by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPPT Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Requests to present oral comments and requests for special
accommodations. Submit requests for special accommodations, or requests
to present oral comments during the virtual meeting and/or the in-
person peer review meeting, to the Designated Federal Official (DFO)
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by the deadline identified
in the DATES section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    TSCA SACC Meeting: Dr. Todd Peterson, DFO, Office of Science
Coordination and Policy (7201M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-6428; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Draft Risk Evaluation: Dr. Stan Barone, Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (7403M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-1169; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may
be of interest to persons who are or may be required to conduct testing
and those interested in risk evaluations of chemical substances under
TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. Since other entities may also be
interested in these draft risk evaluations, the EPA has not attempted
to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this
action.

B. What is EPA's authority for taking this action?

    TSCA section 6, 15 U.S.C. 2605, requires EPA to conduct risk
evaluations to ``determine whether a chemical substance presents an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, without
consideration of costs or other nonrisk factors, including an
unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation
identified as relevant to the risk evaluation by the Administrator,
under the conditions of use.'' 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(A). TSCA sections
6(b)(4)(A) through (H) enumerate the deadlines and minimum requirements
applicable to this process, including provisions that provide
instruction on chemical substances that must undergo evaluation, the
minimum components of a TSCA risk evaluation, and the timelines for
public comment and completion of the risk evaluation. TSCA also
requires that EPA operate in a manner that is consistent with the best
available science, make decisions based on the weight of the scientific
evidence and consider reasonably available information. 15 U.S.C.
2625(h), (i), and (k).
    The statute identifies the minimum components for all chemical
substance risk evaluations. For each risk evaluation, EPA must publish
a document that outlines the scope of the risk evaluation to be
conducted, which includes the hazards, exposures, conditions of use,
and the potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations that EPA
expects to consider. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(D). The statute further
provides that each risk evaluation must also: (1) Integrate and assess
available information on hazards and exposures for the conditions of
use of the chemical substance, including information on specific risks
of injury to health or the environment and information on relevant
potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations; (2) describe whether
aggregate or sentinel exposures were considered and the basis for that
consideration; (3) take into account, where relevant, the likely
duration, intensity, frequency, and number of exposures under the
conditions of use; and (4) describe the weight of the scientific
evidence for the identified hazards and exposures. 15 U.S.C.
2605(b)(4)(F)(i)-(ii) and (iv)-(v). Each risk evaluation must not
consider costs or other nonrisk factors. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(F)(iii).
    The statute requires that the risk evaluation process last no
longer than three years, with a possible additional six-month
extension. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(G). The statute also requires that the
EPA allow for no less than a 30-day public comment period on the draft
risk evaluation, prior to publishing a final risk evaluation. 15 U.S.C.
2605(b)(4)(H).

C. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is announcing the availability of and seeking public comment on
the draft risk evaluation of the chemical substances identified in Unit
II. EPA is seeking public comment on all aspects of the draft risk
evaluation, including any preliminary conclusions, findings, and
determinations, and the submission of any additional information that
might be relevant to the draft risk evaluation, including the science
underlying the draft risk evaluation and the outcome of the systematic
review associated with the chemical substances. This 60-day comment
period on the draft risk evaluation satisfies TSCA section 6(b)(4)(H),
which requires EPA to ``provide no less than 30 days public notice and
an opportunity for comment on a draft risk evaluation prior to
publishing a final risk evaluation,'' and 40 CFR 702.49(a), which
states that ``EPA will publish a draft risk evaluation in the Federal
Register, open a docket to facilitate receipt of public comment, and
provide no less than a 60-day comment period, during which time the
public may submit comment on EPA's draft risk evaluation.'' In addition
to any new comments on the draft risk evaluation, the public should
resubmit or clearly identify any previously filed comments, modified as
appropriate, that are relevant to the draft risk evaluation and that
the submitter feels have not been addressed. EPA does not intend to
respond to comments submitted prior to the release of the draft risk
evaluation unless they are clearly identified in comments on the draft
risk evaluation.
    EPA is also submitting the draft risk evaluation and associated
supporting documents to the TSCA SACC for peer review and announcing
the meeting for the peer review panel. All comments submitted to the
dockets on the draft risk evaluation by the deadline identified in the
DATES section will be provided for consideration to the TSCA SACC peer
review panel, which will have the opportunity to consider the comments
during its discussions.

D. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then
identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific
information that is claimed CBI. In addition to one complete version of
the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the
comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be
submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

II. Draft TSCA Risk Evaluation

A. What is EPA's risk evaluation process for existing chemicals under
TSCA?

    The risk evaluation process is the second step in EPA's existing
chemical process under TSCA, following prioritization and before risk
management. As these chemicals are part of the first ten chemical
substances undergoing risk evaluation, these chemical substances were
not required to go through prioritization (81 FR 91927, December 19,
2016) (FRL-9956-47). The purpose of risk evaluation is to determine
whether a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to
health or the environment, under the conditions of use, including an
unreasonable risk to a relevant potentially exposed or susceptible
subpopulation. As part of this process, EPA must evaluate both hazard
and exposure, not consider costs or other nonrisk factors, use
reasonably available information and approaches in a manner that is
consistent with the requirements in TSCA for the use of the best
available science, and ensure decisions are based on the weight-of-
scientific-evidence.
    The specific risk evaluation process that EPA has established by
rule to implement the statutory process is set out in 40 CFR part 702
and summarized on EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/risk-evaluations-existing-chemicals-under-tsca. As explained in the preamble to EPA's final rule on
procedures for risk evaluation (82 FR 33726, July 20, 2017) (FRL-9964-
38), the specific regulatory process set out in 40 CFR part 702,
subpart B, will be followed for the first ten chemical substances
undergoing risk evaluation to the maximum extent practicable.

B. What is NMP?

    N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP), also called N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone, or
1-methyl-2-pyrrolidone, is a chemical that is widely used during the
manufacture and production of polymers, pharmaceuticals, agrichemicals
and petroleum products. Information from the 2016 Chemical Data
Reporting (CDR) for NMP indicates the reported production volume is
more than 160 million lbs/year (manufacture and import).
    Information about the problem formulation and scope phases of the
TSCA risk evaluation for this chemical is available at https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/risk-evaluation-n-methylpyrrolidone-nmp-0.

III. TSCA SACC

A. What is the purpose of the TSCA SACC?

    The TSCA SACC was established by EPA in 2016 and operates in
accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C.
Appendix 2 et seq. The TSCA SACC provides expert independent scientific
advice and consultation to the EPA on the scientific and technical
aspects of risk assessments, methodologies, and pollution prevention
measures and approaches for chemicals regulated under TSCA.
    The TSCA SACC is comprised of experts in: Toxicology; human health
and environmental risk assessment; exposure assessment; and related
sciences (e.g., synthetic biology, pharmacology, biotechnology,
nanotechnology, biochemistry, biostatistics, physiologically based
pharmacokinetic modelling (PBPK) modeling, computational toxicology,
epidemiology, environmental fate, and environmental engineering and
sustainability). When needed, the committee will be assisted in their
reviews by ad hoc participants with specific expertise in the topics
under consideration.

B. How can I access the TSCA SACC documents?

    EPA's background documents, related supporting materials, and draft
charge questions to the TSCA SACC are available on the TSCA SACC
website and in the docket established for the specific chemical
substances. In addition, EPA will provide additional background
documents (e.g., TSCA SACC members participating in this meeting and
the meeting agenda) as the materials become available. You may obtain
electronic copies of these documents, and certain other related
documents that might be available, in the docket at http://www.regulations.gov and the TSCA SACC website at http://www.epa.gov/tsca-peer-review.
    After the public meeting, the TSCA SACC will prepare meeting
minutes summarizing its recommendations to EPA. The meeting minutes
will be posted on the TSCA SACC website and in the relevant docket.

C. What do I need to know about the TSCA SACC public meetings?

    The focus of the public meeting is to peer review EPA's draft risk
evaluation. After the peer review process, EPA will consider peer
reviewer comments and recommendations, and public comments, in
finalizing the risk evaluation. The draft risk evaluation contains:
Discussion of chemistry and physical-chemical properties;
characterization of conditions of use; environmental fate and transport
assessment; human health exposures; environmental hazard assessment;
risk characterization; risk determination; and a detailed description
of the systematic review process developed by the Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics to search, screen, and evaluate scientific
literature for use in the risk evaluation process.

D. How do I participate in the public meetings?

    You may participate in the public meetings by following the
instructions in this unit. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is
imperative that you identify the corresponding docket ID number in the
subject line on the first page of your request.
    1. Preparatory virtual meeting. The preparatory virtual meeting
will be conducted via webcast and telephone. You may participate in the
preparatory virtual meeting by registering to join the webcast. You may
also submit written comments or request time for oral comments.
    i. Registration. You must register to participate in the
preparatory virtual meeting. To participate by listening or making a
comment during this meeting, please go to the EPA website to register:
http://www.epa.gov/tsca-peer-review. Registration online will be
confirmed by an email that will include the webcast meeting link and
audio teleconference information.
    ii. Written comments. Written comments for consideration during the
preparatory virtual meeting should be submitted, using the instructions
in ADDRESSES and this unit, on or before the date set in the DATES
section.

    iii. Oral comments. Requests to make brief oral comments to the
TSCA SACC during the preparatory virtual meeting should be submitted
when registering online or with the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT on or before noon on the date set in the DATES
section. Oral comments before the TSCA SACC during the preparatory
virtual meeting are limited to approximately 5 minutes due to the time
constraints of this virtual meeting.
    2. In-person meeting. You may participate in the in-person public
meeting by attending and by providing written or oral comments. The in-
person meeting may also be webcast. Please refer to the TSCA SACC
website at http://www.epa.gov/tsca-peer-review for information on how
to access the webcast. Please note that for the in-person meeting, the
webcast is a supplementary public process provided only for
convenience. If difficulties arise resulting in webcasting outages, the
in-person meeting will continue as planned.
    i. Seating at the meeting. Seating at the meeting will be open and
on a first-come basis.
    ii. Written comments. To provide the TSCA SACC the time necessary
to consider and review your comments, written comments must be
submitted by the date set in the DATES section and using the
instructions in the ADDRESSES section and this unit. Comments received
after the date set in the DATES section and prior to the end of the
oral public comment period during the meeting will still be provided to
the TSCA SACC for their consideration.
    iii. Oral comments. To be included on the meeting agenda, submit
your request to make brief oral comments at the in-person meeting to
the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT on or before the
date set in the DATES section. The request should identify the name of
the individual making the presentation, the organization (if any) the
individual will represent, and any requirements for audiovisual
equipment. Oral comments before TSCA SACC during the in-person meeting
are limited to approximately 5 minutes unless prior arrangements have
been made. In addition, each speaker should bring 30 copies of the
comments and presentation for distribution by the DFO to the TSCA SACC
at the meeting.

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: November 4, 2019.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019-24349 Filed 11-6-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Ametryn Dietary Exposure Assessment DP Barcode: D307103 PC Code: 080801 Page: 1 of 13 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES MEMORANDUM DATE: 06 OCT 2004 SUBJECT: Ametryn. Chronic and Cancer Dietary Exposure Assessments for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision PC Code: 080801 DP Barcode: D307103 REVIEWER: William H. Donovan, Ph. D., Chemist Reregistration Branch 3 Health Effects Division ( 7509C)

THROUGH: David Soderberg, Chemist Susan Stanton, Environmental Scientist Dietary Exposure Science Advisory Council ( DESAC) Health Effects Division ( 7509C)

and Danette Drew, Branch Senior Scientist Reregistration Branch 3 Branch/ Health Effects Division ( 7509C)

TO: John Doherty, Toxicologist Reregistration Branch 3 Health Effects Division ( 7509C)

Executive Summary Chronic and cancer dietary risk assessments were conducted using Lifeline   ( ver. 2.0) and the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model  Food Consumption Intake Database ( DEEM FCID   , Version 2.0) models. Both of these models use food consumption data from the USDA's Ametryn Dietary Exposure Assessment DP Barcode: D307103 PC Code: 080801 Page: 2 of 13 Continuing Surveys of Food Intakes by Individuals ( CSFII) from 1994 1996 and 1998. The analyses were performed to support the reregistration eligibility decision for ametryn.

The chronic and cancer analyses were conducted using average residue levels from applicable field trials, percent crop treated information and DEEM ( ver. 7.76) default processing factors. The Lifeline   chronic exposure estimates were < 0.1% cPAD for all population subgroups and are therefore less than HED's level of concern. The lifetime cancer risk calculated in Lifeline   for the US population is 2.7 x 10 8 and is therefore less than HED's level of concern ( HED performs cancer assessments for only the general US population). DEEM FCID   resulted in chronic and cancer exposure estimates nearly identical to those from Lifeline   . The present assessment is refined as it makes use of average residue levels from field trial results, default processing factors, and percent crop treated information.

I. Introduction Dietary risk assessment incorporates both exposure and toxicity of a given pesticide. For chronic assessments, the risk is expressed as a percentage of a maximum acceptable dose ( i. e., the dose which HED has concluded will result in no unreasonable adverse health effects). This dose is referred to as the population adjusted dose ( PAD). The PAD is equivalent to the Reference Dose ( RfD) divided by the special FQPA Safety Factor.

For non cancer chronic exposures, HED is concerned when estimated dietary risk exceeds 100% of the PAD. For cancer exposures, HED is generally concerned when estimated cancer risks exceed one in one million ( i. e., the risk exceeds 1 x 10 6). References which discuss the acute and chronic risk assessments in more detail are available on the EPA/ pesticides web site: " Available Information on Assessing Exposure from Pesticides, A User's Guide," 6/ 21/ 2000, web link: http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/ EPA PEST/ 2000/ July/ Day 12/ 6061. pdf ; or see SOP 99.6 ( 8/ 20/ 99).

This memo documents the first HED dietary risk assessment for ametryn.

II. Residue Information Tolerances for residues of ametryn in/ on a variety of crops are listed under 40 CFR § 180.258. However, because the registrant is only supporting ametryn uses on corn, sugarcane, and pineapple, these are the only crops that were included in the present dietary analysis. Anticipated residue values were used for this dietary exposure analysis, based on average crop field trial data. Residue data for pineapple was taken from MRID 419095 02, " Ametryn   Pineapple Residue Summary". This study reports the results of 8 pineapple field trials conducted in Hawaii. As residue levels from two pineapple fruit samples were reported for each trial, an average of the 16 residue levels was computed for use as an anticipated residue level for the chronic dietary analysis. The data collection method LOQ was 0.02 ppm. Thus, residue levels reported as < LOQ were taken to be ½ LOQ or 0.01 ppm. Table 1 lists the pineapple results used to determine the anticipated residue level for ametryn residues in pineapple. Ametryn Dietary Exposure Assessment DP Barcode: D307103 PC Code: 080801 Page: 3 of 13 Table 1. Ametryn Residue Levels in Hawaiian Pineapple Field Trialsa.

Island Fruit variety Trial ID DALAb Ametryn ( ppm)

Oahu: Wahiawa Dole Wahiawa 96 20 26 161 < 0.02 Oahu: Wahiawa Dole Wahiawa 96 20 26 161 < 0.02 Oahu: Kunia Del Monte W135W1 160 < 0.02 Oahu: Kunia Del Monte W135W1 160 < 0.02 Oahu: Kunia Del Monte W135W2 160 < 0.02 Oahu: Kunia Del Monte W135W2 160 < 0.02 Oahu: Kunia Del Monte W135W3 160 < 0.02 Oahu: Kunia Del Monte W135W3 160 < 0.02 Maui Maui Pineapple 89 3.1 161 < 0.02 Maui Maui Pineapple 89 3.1 161 < 0.02 Maui Maui Pineapple 89 3.2 151 < 0.02 Maui Maui Pineapple 89 3.2 151 < 0.02 Lanai Dole Lanai 96 20 27 142 0.027 Lanai Dole Lanai 96 20 27 142 0.033 Lanai Dole Lanai 96 20 28 142 0.034 Lanai Dole Lanai 96 20 28 142 0.050 Average Residue 0.017 a All trials involved one treatment with Evik   80W at a rate of 7.2 lb ai/ A. b Days after last application.

All corn grain and sugarcane samples treated at a 1x rate had ametryn residue levels reported as < 0.02 ppm ( LOQ). Thus, the anticipated residue levels used for the chronic analysis of ametryn are as follows: corn, 0.01 ppm; sugarcane, 0.01 ppm; and pineapple, 0.017 ppm.

Percent crop treated information as provided by BEAD was as follows: corn, 3%; sugarcane, 30 %; and pineapple, 100 % ( Ametryn Use Closure Memo, M. Howard, 27 FEB 2004). The following default processing factors from DEEM ( Ver 7.76) were used: corn, syrup 1.5; pineapple, juice 1.7; and pineapple, dried 5.0.

III Program and Consumption Information Ametryn Dietary Exposure Assessment DP Barcode: D307103 PC Code: 080801 Page: 4 of 13 Several reasonable peer reviewed software programs have recently been emerging for modeling dietary exposure to pesticides. For a variety of technical, historical, and availability reasons, DEEMTM was the program generally used by EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs for conducting its dietary risk assessments. With the advent and current availability of a number of other exposure software programs, OPP, registrants, and other interested parties have available to them the option of selecting other peer reviewed exposure software in conducting risk assessments for pesticides. LifelineTM is one such model and is the software being used in this review, in addition to DEEM FCID   . Dietary Exposure assessments may also be performed with other, similar programs, and if submitted, such results will be reviewed by EPA for acceptability and comparability to existing peer reviewed software being used by OPP.

IIIa. DEEM FCID   Program and Consumption Information Ametryn chronic dietary exposure assessments were conducted using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database ( DEEM FCID   , Version 2.0), which incorporates consumption data from USDA's Continuing Surveys of Food Intakes by Individuals ( CSFII), 1994 1996 and 1998. The 1994 1996, 1998 data are based on the reported consumption of more than 20,000 individuals over two non consecutive survey days. Foods " as consumed" ( e. g., apple pie) are linked to EPA defined food commodities ( e. g. apples, peeled fruit  cooked; fresh or N/ S; baked; or wheat flour  cooked; fresh or N/ S, baked) using publicly available recipe translation files developed jointly by USDA/ ARS and EPA. For chronic exposure assessment, consumption data are averaged for the entire U. S. population and within population subgroups, but for acute exposure assessment are retained as individual consumption events. Based on analysis of the 1994 1996, 1998 CSFII consumption data, which took into account dietary patterns and survey respondents, HED concluded that it is most appropriate to report risk for the following population subgroups: the general U. S. population, all infants (< 1 year old), children 1 2 years old, children 3 5 years old, children 6 12 years old, youth 13 19 years old, adults 20 49 years old, females 13 49 years old, and adults 50+ years old.

For chronic dietary exposure assessment, an estimate of the residue level in each food or foodform ( e. g., orange or orange juice) on the food commodity residue list is multiplied by the average daily consumption estimate for that food/ food form to produce a residue intake estimate. The resulting residue intake estimate for each food/ food form is summed with the residue intake estimates for all other food/ food forms on the commodity residue list to arrive at the total average estimated exposure. Exposure is expressed in mg/ kg body weight/ day and as a percent of the cPAD. This procedure is performed for each population subgroup. Ametryn Dietary Exposure Assessment DP Barcode: D307103 PC Code: 080801 Page: 5 of 13 III b. Lifeline   Program and Consumption Information Chronic dietary exposure estimates were also conducted using the Lifeline   model ( Version 2.0). These Lifeline   assessments were also conducted using the same consumption data as the DEEM FCID   ( CSFII, 1994 1996 and 1998 consumption data with FCID). Lifeline   uses the recipe file to relate RACs to foods " as eaten." Lifeline   converts the RAC residues into food residues by randomly selecting a RAC residue value from the " user defined" residue distribution ( created from the residue, percent crop treated, and processing factors data), and calculating a net residue for that food based on the ingredients' mass contribution to that food item. For example, ` apple pie' will have a residue distribution based on the residues provided for apples ( adjusted by the appropriate processing factors and percent crop treated), as well as the residues for each of the other ingredients in the apple pie recipe for which there may be tolerances. Lifeline   calculates dietary exposure from ` apple pie' based on the amount eaten, and the residue drawn from the ` apple pie' residue distribution for that eating occasion.

Lifeline   models the individual's dietary exposures over a season by selecting a new CSFII diary each day from a set of similar individuals based on age and season attributes. Lifeline   groups CSFII diaries based on the respondents' age and the season during which the food diary was recorded. Further information regarding the Lifeline   model can be found at the following web site: www. theLifeline   group. org.

IV. Toxicological Information The doses and endpoints for use in the dietary assessments were selected by the ametryn risk assessment team. The database is substantially complete and no concerns were identified that would necessitate a hazard based special FQPA safety factor. The relevant doses and endpoints for dietary exposure assessment are presented in Table 2. Although the CARC made no classification of ametryn with regards to carcinogenic potential due to inadequate data and requested that the registrant conduct a new cancer study, a Q 1* estimate of 0.0066 ( mg/ kg/ day) 1 based on the most sensitive tumor was derived from the available database ( personal communication, Ray Kent, 14 SEP 2004). The ametryn risk assessment team, in consultation with the HED Hazard Assessment Science Policy Council ( HASPC), decided to conduct the preliminary cancer risk assessment reported in this document using the estimated Q 1* value for ametryn. The ametryn team believes that using the Q 1* based on existing data will reasonably approximate cancer risk to humans and considers it unlikely that the requested new cancer study will result in a higher risk for ametryn. Support for this conclusion comes from the observation that there were no tumors in the rat study at 500 ppm, a dose resulting in minimal body weight decrease and the fact that there were no compound related tumors in the mouse study at dose levels up to and including 2000 ppm. Ametryn Dietary Exposure Assessment DP Barcode: D307103 PC Code: 080801 Page: 6 of 13 Table 2. Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Ametryn for Use in Dietary Exposure Assessment Exposure Scenario Dose Used in Risk Assessment, UF Hazard and Exposure Based Special FQPA Safety Factor Study and Toxicological Effects Acute Dietary ( General population including infants and children) No toxicological effect attributable to a single dose identified. This risk assessment is not required.

Acute Dietary ( Females 13 50 years of age) No toxicological effect attributable to a single dose identified. This risk assessment is not required.

Chronic Dietary ( All populations) NOAEL= 7.2 mg/ kg/ day UF = 100 Chronic RfD = 0.072 mg/ kg/ day FQPA SF = 1X cPAD = chronic RfD FQPA SF = 0.072 mg/ kg/ day Dog chronic feeding study with indications of degenerative and inflammatory liver effects at 70 mg/ kg/ day.

Cancer The Cancer Assessment Review Committee ( CARC) met to evaluate the carcinogenic potential of ametryn on 21 JUL 2004 and concluded that the " data are inadequate for an assessment of human carcinogenic potential". The carcinogenicity study in rats is unacceptable because the high dose was considered to be excessive. The CARC requested that the carcinogenicity study in rats be repeated at a dose that is adequate to assess carcinogenicity. However, the available data allow for a determination of a Q1* value of 0.0066 ( mg/ kg/ day) 1, based on observations of combined mammary tumors in female rats. The ametryn risk assessment team believes that using the estimated Q1* based on existing data will reasonably approximate cancer risk to humans and considers it unlikely that the requested new cancer study will result in a higher risk for ametryn. Support for this conclusion comes from the observation that there were no tumors in the rat study at 500 ppm, a dose resulting in minimal body weight decrease and the fact that there were no compound related tumors in the mouse study at dose levels up to and including 2000 ppm.

V. Results/ Discussion As stated above, for chronic assessments, HED is concerned when dietary risk exceeds 100% of the PAD and for cancer assessments HED is concerned when the lifetime risk for the general US population exceeds 1 x 10 6. The following paragraphs are summaries of the DEEM FCID   ( version 2.0) and Lifeline   ( version 2.0) chronic and cancer exposure analyses. Tables 3 and 4 summarize the results from these analyses. Note that the results from both models are in close accord with one another.

Lifeline   : Chronic and cancer dietary exposure analyses were performed using Lifeline   ( ver 2.0). The chronic dietary exposure estimates were < 0.1% cPAD for all population subgroups and are therefore less than HED's level of concern. The lifetime cancer risk for the US Ametryn Dietary Exposure Assessment DP Barcode: D307103 PC Code: 080801 Page: 7 of 13 population is 2.7 x 10 8 and is therefore less than HED's level of concern ( HED performs cancer assessments for the general US population only).

DEEM    FCID   : Chronic and cancer dietary exposure analyses were performed using DEEMFCID   ( ver. 2.0). The chronic dietary exposure estimates were < 0.1% cPAD for all population subgroups and are therefore less than HED's level of concern. The lifetime cancer risk for the US population is 2.7 x 10 8 and is therefore less than HED's level of concern ( HED performs cancer assessments for the general US population only).

Table 3. Summary of Dietary Exposure and Risk for Ametryn Population Subgroup Dietary Exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) % cPAD 1 DEEM FCID   Lifeline   DEEM FCID   Lifeline   Chronic Assessment General U. S. Population 0.000004 0.000004 < 0.1 < 0.1 All Infants (< 1 year old) 0.000008 0.000008 < 0.1 < 0.1 Children 1 2 years old 0.000018 0.000018 < 0.1 < 0.1 Children 3 5 years old 0.000013 0.000014 < 0.1 < 0.1 Children 6 12 years old 0.000008 0.000008 < 0.1 < 0.1 Youth 13 19 years old 0.000003 0.000004 < 0.1 < 0.1 Adults 20 49 years old 0.000003 0.000003 < 0.1 < 0.1 Adults 50+ years old 0.000002 0.000003 < 0.1 < 0.1 Females 13 49 years old 0.000003 0.000003 < 0.1 < 0.1 1 HED is generally not concerned if the % PAD is less than 100%.

Table 4. Summary of Cancer Dietary Exposure and Risk for Ametryn Population Subgroup Q1* cPAD ( mg/ kg/ day) 1 Exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) Lifetime risk Lifeline   DEEMFCID   Lifeline   DEEM FCID   General US Population 0.0066 0.000004 0.000004 2.72 x 10 8 2.74 x 10 8 Ametryn Dietary Exposure Assessment DP Barcode: D307103 PC Code: 080801 Page: 8 of 13 VI. Characterization of Inputs/ Outputs The dietary exposures estimated in this analysis are likely higher than actual exposures to ametryn. Average field trial residue levels were used for the chronic analysis, together with percent crop treated information and default processing factors; thus, the present assessment may be considered to be refined.

VII. Conclusions Chronic and cancer dietary risk assessments were conducted for ametryn ( acute analysis not applicable). The Lifeline   and DEEM FCID   chronic exposure estimates were < 0.1% cPAD for all population subgroups, and therefore less than HED's level of concern. The Lifeline   and DEEM FCID   lifetime cancer risk for the US Population was 2.7 x 10 8 and therefore also less than HED's level of concern. The present assessment is refined as it makes use of average residue levels from field trial results, default processing factors, and percent crop treated information.

VIII. List of Attachments Attachment 1: Lifeline   chronic/ cancer residue file Attachment 2: Lifeline   chronic exposure estimates Attachment 3: DEEM FCID   chronic/ cancer residue file Attachment 4: DEEM FCID   chronic exposure estimates Attachment 5: DEEM FCID   cancer exposure estimates cc with all attachments: W. Donovan ( RRB3) W. Donovan: 821G: CM# 2:( 703) 305 7330: 7590C Ametryn Dietary Exposure Assessment DP Barcode: D307103 PC Code: 080801 Page: 9 of 13 Attachment 1: Lifeline   chronic/ cancer residue file Crop Group Commodity FoodForm Residue Dehydration Use Factor CEREAL GRAINS Corn, field, flour All .01 CEREAL GRAINS Corn, field, flour babyfood All .01 CEREAL GRAINS Corn, field, meal All .01 CEREAL GRAINS Corn, field, meal babyfood All .01 CEREAL GRAINS Corn, field, bran All .01 CEREAL GRAINS Corn, field, starch All .01 CEREAL GRAINS Corn, field, starch babyfood All .01 CEREAL GRAINS Corn, field, syrup All .01 CEREAL GRAINS Corn, field, syrup babyfood All .01 CEREAL GRAINS Corn, field, oil All .01 CEREAL GRAINS Corn, field, oil babyfood All .01 CEREAL GRAINS Corn, pop All .01 CEREAL GRAINS Corn, sweet All .01 CEREAL GRAINS Corn, sweet babyfood All .01 MISC. Pineapple All .017 MISC. Pineapple babyfood All .017 MISC. Pineapple, dried All .017 MISC. Pineapple, juice All .017 MISC. Pineapple, juice babyfood All .017 MISC. Sugarcane, sugar All .01 MISC. Sugarcane, sugar babyfood All .01 MISC. Sugarcane, molasses All .01 MISC. Sugarcane, molasses  babyfood All .01 CEREAL GRAINS Corn, field, syrup All 1.5 CEREAL GRAINS Corn, field, syrup babyfood All 1.5 MISC. Pineapple, dried All 5 MISC. Pineapple, juice All 1.7 MISC. Pineapple, juice babyfood All 1.7 CEREAL GRAINS Corn, field, flour All .03 CEREAL GRAINS Corn, field, flour babyfood All .03 CEREAL GRAINS Corn, field, meal All .03 CEREAL GRAINS Corn, field, meal babyfood All .03 CEREAL GRAINS Corn, field, bran All .03 CEREAL GRAINS Corn, field, starch All .03 CEREAL GRAINS Corn, field, starch babyfood All .03 CEREAL GRAINS Corn, field, syrup All .03 CEREAL GRAINS Corn, field, syrup babyfood All .03 CEREAL GRAINS Corn, field, oil All .03 CEREAL GRAINS Corn, field, oil babyfood All .03 CEREAL GRAINS Corn, pop All .03 CEREAL GRAINS Corn, sweet All .03 CEREAL GRAINS Corn, sweet babyfood All .03 MISC. Sugarcane, sugar All .3 MISC. Sugarcane, sugar babyfood All .3 MISC. Sugarcane, molasses All .3 MISC. Sugarcane, molasses  babyfood All .3 Ametryn Dietary Exposure Assessment DP Barcode: D307103 PC Code: 080801 Page: 10 of 13 Attachment 2: Lifeline   chronic exposure estimates age_ group mean cPAD_ mean NOAEL UFFQPA cPAD RNOAEL RUFFQPA RcPAD General U. S. Population 4.11531E 06 0.005715706 7.2 100 0.072 All Infants (< 1 year old) 8.48067E 06 0.011778705 7.2 100 0.072 Children 1 2 years old 1.82924E 05 0.025406094 7.2 100 0.072 Children 3 5 years old 1.42957E 05 0.019855171 7.2 100 0.072 Children 6 12 years old 7.75716E 06 0.010773832 7.2 100 0.072 Youth 13 19 years old 4.00734E 06 0.005565753 7.2 100 0.072 Adults 20 49 years old 2.89953E 06 0.004027122 7.2 100 0.072 Adults 50+ years old 2.68407E 06 0.003727876 7.2 100 0.072 Females 13 49 years old 3.47185E 06 0.004822021 7.2 100 0.072 Ametryn Dietary Exposure Assessment DP Barcode: D307103 PC Code: 080801 Page: 11 of 13 Attachment 3: DEEM FCID   chronic/ cancer residue file Filename: C:\ BackupFiles\ Ametryn\ 080801c. R98 Chemical: Ametryn RfD( Chronic): .072 mg/ kg bw/ day NOEL( Chronic): 7.2 mg/ kg bw/ day RfD( Acute): 0 mg/ kg bw/ day NOEL( Acute): 0 mg/ kg bw/ day Q*= .0066 Date created/ last modified: 09 27 2004/ 13: 36: 44/ 8 Program ver. 2.03 Comment: avg residue levels & % CT corrections  EPA Crop Def Res Adj. Factors Comment Code Grp Commodity Name ( ppm) # 1 # 2        15001200 15 Corn, field, flour 0.010000 1.000 0.030 15001201 15 Corn, field, flour babyfood 0.010000 1.000 0.030 15001210 15 Corn, field, meal 0.010000 1.000 0.030 15001211 15 Corn, field, meal babyfood 0.010000 1.000 0.030 15001220 15 Corn, field, bran 0.010000 1.000 0.030 15001230 15 Corn, field, starch 0.010000 1.000 0.030 15001231 15 Corn, field, starch babyfood 0.010000 1.000 0.030 15001240 15 Corn, field, syrup 0.010000 1.500 0.030 15001241 15 Corn, field, syrup babyfood 0.010000 1.500 0.030 15001250 15 Corn, field, oil 0.010000 1.000 0.030 15001251 15 Corn, field, oil babyfood 0.010000 1.000 0.030 15001260 15 Corn, pop 0.010000 1.000 0.030 15001270 15 Corn, sweet 0.010000 1.000 0.030 15001271 15 Corn, sweet babyfood 0.010000 1.000 0.030 95002790 O Pineapple 0.017000 1.000 1.000 95002791 O Pineapple babyfood 0.017000 1.000 1.000 95002800 O Pineapple, dried 0.017000 5.000 1.000 95002810 O Pineapple, juice 0.017000 1.700 1.000 95002811 O Pineapple, juice babyfood 0.017000 1.700 1.000 95003620 O Sugarcane, sugar 0.010000 1.000 0.300 95003621 O Sugarcane, sugar babyfood 0.010000 1.000 0.300 95003630 O Sugarcane, molasses 0.010000 1.000 0.300 95003631 O Sugarcane, molasses babyfood 0.010000 1.000 0.300 Ametryn Dietary Exposure Assessment DP Barcode: D307103 PC Code: 080801 Page: 12 of 13 Attachment 4: DEEM FCID   chronic exposure estimates U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Ver. 2.00 DEEM FCID Chronic analysis for AMETRYN ( 1994 98 data) Residue file name: C:\ BackupFiles\ Ametryn\ 080801c. R98 Adjustment factor # 2 used. Analysis Date 09 27 2004/ 13: 37: 16 Residue file dated: 09 27 2004/ 13: 36: 44/ 8 Reference dose ( RfD, Chronic) = .072 mg/ kg bw/ day COMMENT 1: avg residue levels & % CT corrections =============================================================================== Total exposure by population subgroup

Total Exposure  Population mg/ kg Percent of Subgroup body wt/ day Rfd    U. S. Population ( total) 0.000004 0.0%

U. S. Population ( spring season) 0.000004 0.0% U. S. Population ( summer season) 0.000004 0.0% U. S. Population ( autumn season) 0.000004 0.0% U. S. Population ( winter season) 0.000004 0.0%

Northeast region 0.000004 0.0% Midwest region 0.000004 0.0% Southern region 0.000004 0.0% Western region 0.000005 0.0%

Hispanics 0.000005 0.0% Non hispanic whites 0.000004 0.0% Non hispanic blacks 0.000005 0.0% Non hisp/ non white/ non black 0.000004 0.0%

All infants (< 1 year) 0.000008 0.0% Nursing infants 0.000004 0.0% Non nursing infants 0.000010 0.0% Children 1 6 yrs 0.000014 0.0% Children 7 12 yrs 0.000007 0.0%

Females 13 19 ( not preg or nursing) 0.000003 0.0% Females 20+ ( not preg or nursing) 0.000003 0.0% Females 13 50 yrs 0.000004 0.0% Females 13+ ( preg/ not nursing) 0.000005 0.0% Females 13+ ( nursing) 0.000008 0.0%

Males 13 19 yrs 0.000003 0.0% Males 20+ yrs 0.000002 0.0% Seniors 55+ 0.000002 0.0%

Children 1 2 yrs 0.000018 0.0% Children 3 5 yrs 0.000013 0.0% Children 6 12 yrs 0.000008 0.0% Youth 13 19 yrs 0.000003 0.0% Adults 20 49 yrs 0.000003 0.0% Adults 50+ yrs 0.000002 0.0% Females 13 49 yrs 0.000003 0.0%

 Ametryn Dietary Exposure Assessment DP Barcode: D307103 PC Code: 080801 Page: 13 of 13 Attachment 5: DEEM FCID   cancer exposure estimates U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Ver. 2.00 DEEM FCID Chronic analysis for AMETRYN ( 1994 98 data) Residue file name: C:\ BackupFiles\ Ametryn\ 080801c. R98 Adjustment factor # 2 used. Analysis Date 09 27 2004/ 13: 38: 17 Residue file dated: 09 27 2004/ 13: 36: 44/ 8 Q* = 0.0066 COMMENT 1: avg residue levels & % CT corrections =============================================================================== Total exposure by population subgroup

Total Exposure  Population mg/ kg Lifetime risk Subgroup body wt/ day ( Q*= .0066)    U. S. Population ( total) 0.000004 2.74E 08


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 245 (Tuesday, December 22, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 79586]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32123]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

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

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2056-001.
    Applicants: Upper Peninsula Power Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: Amendment to Triennial Market Based
Rate to be effective 8/28/2015.
    Filed Date: 12/16/15.
    Accession Number: 20151216-5101.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/6/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-539-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Membership Agreement
Amendments for Central Power and Mountrail-Williams to be effective 2/
14/2016.
    Filed Date: 12/16/15.
    Accession Number: 20151216-5170.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/6/16.

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

    Dated: December 16, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-32123 Filed 12-21-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 241 (Thursday, December 15, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 90840-90842]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30176]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0675; FRL-9956-03]

TSCA Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements; Standards for
Small Manufacturers and Processors

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: On June 22, 2016, President Obama signed into law the Frank R.
Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act which amended the
Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA). TSCA, as amended, requires EPA to
review the size standards for small manufacturers and processors, which
are currently used in connection with reporting regulations under TSCA
Section 8(a). In particular, EPA must make a determination whether a
revision of those standards is warranted. EPA's preliminary
determination is that revisions to currently codified size standards
for TSCA Section 8(a) are indeed warranted. As part of the ongoing
review process, the EPA is requesting public comment on whether a
revision of the current size standard definitions is warranted at this
time.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 17, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0675, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact:
Lynne Blake-Hedges, Chemistry, Economics, and Sustainable Strategies
Division (7406M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture
or process chemical substances or mixtures. The following list of North
American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended
to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine
whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities
may include:
     Basic Chemical Manufacturers (NAICS code 3251);
     Resin, Synthetic Rubber, and Artificial Synthetic Fibers
and Filament Manufacturers (NAICS code 3252);
     Pesticide, Fertilizer, and Other Agricultural Chemical
Manufacturers (NAICS code 3255);
     Paint, Coating, and Adhesive Manufacturers (NAICS code
3255);
     Other Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturers
(NAICS code 3259); and
     Petroleum Refineries (NAICS code 32411).

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

II. What action is the agency taking?

    On June 22, 2016, President Obama signed into law the Frank R.
Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act which amends the
Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA), the nation's primary chemicals
management law. A summary of the new law, is available at https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/frank-r-lautenberg-chemical-safety-21st-century-act. This particular action
involves the revised TSCA section 8(a)(3)(C), which requires EPA, after
consultation with the Administrator of the Small Business
Administration, to review the adequacy of the standards for determining
the manufacturers and processors which qualify as small manufacturers
and processors for purposes of TSCA sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3). TSCA
furthermore requires that (after consulting with the Small Business
Administration and providing public notice and an opportunity for
comment) EPA make a determination as to whether revision of the
standards is warranted.
    In the 1980s, the EPA issued standards that are used in identifying
which businesses qualify as small manufacturers and processors for
purposes of the reporting and recordkeeping rules issued under TSCA
section 8(a). (Under TSCA, manufacture includes import, so references
to chemical manufacture include chemical import.) These size standards
describe who is generally exempt from reporting requirements under TSCA
section 8(a). This exemption arises because TSCA section 8(a)(1)
generally exempts small manufacturers and processors from reporting
requirements, except in limited cases set forth in TSCA section
8(a)(3).
    In 1982, the EPA finalized standards for determining which
manufacturers of a reportable chemical substance qualified as small
manufacturers for purposes of a particular set of TSCA section 8(a)
rules. These are the Preliminary Assessment Information Reporting
(PAIR) rules, codified in 40 CFR part 712, subpart B. The small
manufacturer standard for PAIR rules is found at 40 CFR 712.25(c).
    In 1988 EPA established general small manufacturer standards for
use in other rules issued under TSCA section 8(a) (40 CFR 704.3). For
example, these are the standards that now apply to the Chemical Data
Reporting (CDR) rule (40 CFR part 711). The general standards are
somewhat different from the earlier standards that are codified for use
in the PAIR rules. The general small manufacturer standard is as
follows:
    Small manufacturer or importer means a manufacturer or importer
that meets either of the following standards:
    (1) First standard. A manufacturer or importer of a substance is
small if its total annual sales, when combined with those of its parent
company (if any), are less than $40 million. However, if the annual
production or importation volume of a particular substance at any
individual site owned or controlled by the manufacturer or importer is
greater than 45,400 kilograms (100,000 pounds), the manufacturer or
importer shall not qualify as small for purposes of reporting on the
production or importation of that substance at that site, unless the
manufacturer or importer qualifies as small under standard (2) of this
definition.
    (2) Second standard. A manufacturer or importer of a substance is
small if its total annual sales, when combined with those of its parent
company (if any), are less than $4 million, regardless of the quantity
of substances produced or imported by that manufacturer or importer.
    (3) Inflation index. EPA shall make use of the Producer Price Index
for Chemicals and Allied Products, as compiled by the U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics, for purposes of determining the need to adjust the
total annual sales values and for determining new sales values when
adjustments are made. EPA may adjust the total annual sales values
whenever the Agency deems it necessary to do so, provided that the
Producer Price Index for Chemicals and Allied Products has changed more
than 20 percent since either the most recent previous change in sales
values or the date of promulgation of this rule, whichever is later.
EPA shall provide Federal Register notification when changing the total
annual sales values.
    Certain rules issued under TSCA section 8(a) directly codify slight
variations of the general small manufacturer standards at 40 CFR 704.3.
(See, e.g., 40 CFR 704.45). Other rules issued under TSCA section 8(a)
establish (for use in a particular rule) analogous standards for small
processors (See, e.g., 40 CFR 704.33).
    As an initial step in evaluating whether a change in these current
size standards are warranted, EPA reviewed the change in the Producer
Price Index (PPI) for Chemicals and Allied Products between 1988 (the
year the size

standards were last revised) and 2015 (the most recent year of PPI data
available) (Ref. 1). EPA found that the PPI has changed by 129 percent,
far exceeding the 20 percent inflation index specified as a level above
which EPA may adjust annual sales levels in the current standard if
deemed necessary. Furthermore, among the more than 500 revenue-based
size standards set by the Small Business Administration (SBA), the
lowest is $5.5 million, and more than 75% of those standards are in
excess of $7.5 million. Some revenue-based standards are as high as
$38.5 million. Thus, EPA's existing $4 million annual sales standard is
an outlier at the low end of this range. Because of the magnitude of
the increase in the PPI since the last revision of the size standards
and the current annual sales standard is comparatively low given
current revenue-based size standards developed by SBA, EPA has
preliminarily determined that a revision to currently codified size
standards is warranted.
    EPA is requesting public comment on the adequacy of the current
standards and whether revision of the standards is warranted. In the
event that EPA determines that a revision to the standards is
warranted, any such revision would occur by subsequent rulemaking,
which would involve a further opportunity for public notice and
comment. Accordingly, the scope of this first action (i.e., the
determination) will not necessarily include responding to stakeholder
comments as to what specific amendments ought to be made to the
standards.
    EPA is also in the process of consulting with the SBA on the
adequacy of the current standards and whether revision of the standards
is warranted. (Ref. 2.) EPA has requested that SBA provide its input
within 15 business days of receiving EPA's consultation request. When
SBA's consultation response becomes available, EPA plans to add that
response to the docket for this preliminary determination.

III. References

    The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically
referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and
other information considered by EPA, including documents that are
referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even
if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For
assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

1. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. ``Producer Price Index, Series
WPU06, Chemicals and Allied Products, 1933-2015''. Retrieved
November 14, 2016 from http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/srgatet.
2. Jones, Jim. Letter to Maria Contreras-Sweet. ``Consultation under
Section 8(a)(3)(C) the Toxic Substances Control Act''. December 7,
2016.

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 2607(a)(3)(C).

    Dated: December 7, 2016.
Jim Jones,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2016-30176 Filed 12-14-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 5, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 191-193]
[FR Doc No: 2015-33014]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-3883; Directorate Identifier 2014-SW-029-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Airbus Helicopters Model AS332L2 and EC225LP helicopters. This
proposed AD would require installing a cut-out for the left-hand (LH)
and right-hand (RH) rail support junction profiles and inspecting
splices, frame 5295, and related equipment for a crack. This proposed
AD is prompted by reports of cracks on frame 5295 and on splices
installed to prevent those cracks. The proposed actions are intended to
detect a crack in frame 5295, which could lead to loss of the
helicopter frame's structural integrity and consequently, loss of
helicopter control.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 7, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
3883 or in person at the Docket Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
AD, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for the Docket Operations Office
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this proposed rule, contact
Airbus Helicopters, Inc., 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at
http://www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub. You may review the referenced
service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, Texas
76177.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Roach, Aviation Safety Engineer,
Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101
Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, Texas 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to
the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might
result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed
electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as
a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Discussion

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, issued AD No. 2014-0098-E, dated April 25, 2014, to
correct an unsafe condition for AS332L2 and EC225LP helicopters. EASA
AD No. 2014-0098-E applies to helicopters with a frame 5295 that have
been reinforced by installing aluminium splices on the RH and LH
fuselage external skins. EASA advises of a report of a crack detected
on the reinforced frame during a scheduled inspection of a helicopter.
According to EASA, the crack initiated on a splice in an area hidden by
the overlapping junction profile of the cabin sliding door rail
support, and then spread to the frame.
    EASA states that a crack in frame 5295, if not detected and
corrected, could lead to loss of structural integrity of the helicopter
frame and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. To address this
condition, EASA issued AD No. 2014-0098-E to require repetitive
inspections of the splices for a crack, as well as cutting out the rail
support junction profiles to provide a convenient access to identify
cracks in a splice.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
our bilateral agreement with France, EASA, its technical
representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in
its AD. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known
relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition is likely
to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No.
EC225-05A038 for Model EC225LP helicopters and ASB No. AS332-05.00.97
for Model

AS332L2 helicopters. The ASBs, both Revision 0 and both dated April 15,
2014, report cracks were found in the splice and frame 5295 on a Model
AS332L2 helicopter during a major inspection. The splice had been added
in compliance with Modification 0726517. Had an optional rail support
cut-out been accomplished on the aircraft to allow for a visual check
of the splice for frame 5295, it would have revealed the crack in the
splice, prompting its repair and consequently limiting the damage to
frame 5295. As a result, the ASBs call for the rail support cut-out on
the RH and LH side of the frame as well as periodic visual inspections
of frame 5295 and related equipment. This service information is
reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it
through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
the ADDRESSES section.

Other Related Service Information

    We reviewed Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) No. 53-003, Revision No.
4, for Model EC225LP helicopters and SB No. 53.01.52, Revision 5, for
Model AS332L2 helicopters, both dated July 23, 2010. The SBs specify
procedures to reinforce frame 5295 by installing a new titanium plate
underneath the fitting and a new widened aluminum splice below the
upper corner of the door. We also reviewed Airbus Helicopters Service
Bulletin No. 05-019, Revision 4, dated September 22, 2014, for Model
EC225LP helicopters, which proposes that you cut out the junction
profiles to perform periodic visual inspections.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require the following before a splice
reaches 1,700 hours time-in-service (TIS), within 50 hours TIS, or
before the helicopter reaches 11,950 hours TIS, whichever occurs later:
     Installing the rail support cut-out and identifying the
right-hand and left-hand junction profile.
     Inspecting each splice for a crack, and repairing or
replacing the splice if there is a crack.
    This proposed AD would then require, at intervals not to exceed 110
hours TIS, inspecting each splice for a crack, and repairing or
replacing the splice if there is a crack.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD requires contacting Airbus Helicopters if there is a
crack in the affected parts. This proposed AD would make no such
requirement.
    The EASA AD sets various timelines for the repair or replacement of
affected parts if a crack exists. This proposed AD would require the
repair or replacement of affected parts before further flight if a
crack exists.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 4 helicopters of
U.S. Registry and that labor costs average $85 a work-hour. Based on
these estimates, we expect the following costs:
    Installing the cut-outs on frame 5295 would require 40 work hours
for a labor cost of $3,400. Parts would cost $5,000 for total cost per
helicopter of $8,400 and $33,600 for the U.S. fleet.
    Inspecting helicopter frame 5295 would require 2 work-hours for a
labor cost of $170 per helicopter. No parts would be needed for a total
U.S. fleet cost of $680 per inspection cycle.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

Airbus Helicopters: Docket No. FAA-2015-3883; Directorate Identifier
2014-SW-029-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Model AS332L2 and Model EC225LP helicopters
with an extended aluminum splice installed on frame 5295,
certificated in any category.

    Note 1 to paragraph (a) of this AD:  Helicopters with
modification (MOD) 0726517 have an extended aluminum splice
installed.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a crack on helicopter
frame 5295. This condition could result in structural failure of the
frame and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by March 7, 2016.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    (1) Before a splice reaches 1,700 hours time-in-service (TIS),
within 50 hours TIS, or before the helicopter reaches 11,950 hours
TIS, whichever occurs later, do the following:
    (i) Install the rail support cut-out and identify the right-hand
and left-hand junction

profile in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions,
paragraph 3.B.2, of Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. EC225-05A038,
Revision 0, dated April 15, 2014 (ASB EC225-05A038), or ASB No.
AS332-05.00.97, Revision 0, dated April 15, 2014 (ASB AS332-
05.00.97), whichever is applicable to your helicopter.
    (ii) Inspect each splice for a crack in the area depicted as
Area Y in Figure 3 of ASB EC225-05A038 or ASB AS332-05.00.97,
whichever is applicable to your helicopter. If a crack exists,
repair or replace the splice before further flight.
    (2) Thereafter at intervals not to exceed 110 hours TIS, inspect
each splice for a crack in the area depicted as Area Y in Figure 3
of ASB EC225-05A038 or ASB AS332-05.00.97. If a crack exists, repair
or replace the splice before further flight.

(f) Credit for Actions Previously Completed

    Installing rail support cut-outs in accordance with MOD 0728090
or Airbus Helicopters Service Bulletin No. 05-019, Revision 4, dated
September 22, 2014, before the effective date of this AD is
considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions
specified in paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this AD.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: Gary Roach, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA,
10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, Texas 76177; telephone (817) 222-
5110; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(h) Additional Information

    (1) Airbus Helicopters Service Bulletin (SB) No. 05-019,
Revision 4, dated September 22, 2014, and SB No. 53-003 and SB No.
53.01.52, both Revision 4 and both dated July 12, 2010, which are
not incorporated by reference, contain additional information about
the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this
AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, Inc., 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand
Prairie, TX 75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
(972) 641-3775; or at http://www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub. You
may review the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of
the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room
6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.
    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2014-0098-E, dated April 25, 2014. You
may view the EASA AD on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
in the AD Docket.

(i) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 5310, Fuselage
Main, Structure.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on December 22, 2015.
Lance T. Gant,
Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-33014 Filed 1-4-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 233 (Wednesday, December 4, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66395-66396]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26194]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER20-479-000]

Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing
Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization: Little Bear
Solar 1, LLC

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced Little Bear
Solar 1, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket

authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities
and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is December 17, 2019.
    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
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 27, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-26194 Filed 12-3-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


CHARACTERISTICS OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CHANGE IN C& T AND WPS Prepared by Amy Brown, Kerry Richards, and Carol Ramsay with input from the American Association of Pesticide Safety Educators ( AAPSE)

14 March 2006 Proposed C & T Change Most Benefit to Safety,

Environment, &/ or Security Most Significant Programmatic Impact Needs Most Discussion 1. Expand users ( beyond RUP) required to demonstrate competency high benefit extremely high impact on Ext. and SLA yes 2. Eliminate " under the supervision" high benefit extremely high impact on Ext. and SLA yes 3. Require RUP dealers to prove competency  high impact on SLA

4. Require trainers to prove competency  high impact on Extension and SLA yes 5. Set minimum age for occupational users

6. Require testing for all occupational users  high impact on SLA yes 7. Set standard requirements for testing  high impact on SLA yes 8. Competency requirements consistent with risk high benefit

9. Ensure continued competency of applicators1

10. Ensure maintenance of current knowledge2 high benefit  yes 11. Develop standard certification categories  high impact on Extension and SLA

12. Equalize standards for states/ tribes/ territories

13. Assure program accountability   yes Proposed WPS Change Most Benefit to Safety,

Environment, &/ or Security Most Significant Programmatic Impact Needs Most Discussion 1. Ensure meaningful hazard communications  high impact on Ext. and SLA

2. Ensure meaningful training

3. Require trainers to demonstrate competency high benefit high impact on SLA yes 4. Establish training verification system  high impact on SLA

5. Protect children from pesticide treated fields high benefit

6. Clarify vague WPS provisions

7. Clarify exceptions

8. Exempt certified crop advisors and aerial applicators

9. Require handlers to demonstrate competency high benefit extremely high impact on Ext. and SLA yes 10. Express regulation in plain English

11. Assure program accountability   yes Proposed Label Change2 Most Benefit to Safety,

Environment, &/ or Security Most Significant Programmatic Impact Needs Most Discussion 1. Amend rules to make applicator certification changes enforceable high benefit

2. Amend rules to make ag. worker protection changes enforceable high benefit

3. Revise labels to conform to rule changes high benefit

1We have re worded this heading to make it consistent with the heading of the slide in which the proposed change is described. Our understanding is that this item refers to testing.

2We have re worded this heading to make it consistent with the heading of the slide in which the proposed change is described. Our understanding is that this item refers to continuing education or recertification training.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 116 (Monday, June 19, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27945-27946]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12702]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Safe
Disposition of Life-Limited Aircraft Parts

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew a previously approved
information collection. This collection involves response to the
Wendall H. Ford Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century which
requires that all persons who remove any life-limited aircraft part
have a method to prevent the installation of that part after it has
reached its life limit.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by August 18, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ronda
Thompson, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 800 Independence
Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronda Thompson by email at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0665.

    Title: Safe Disposition of Life-Limited Aircraft Parts.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this
collection.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: 14 CFR part 43 requires a record keeping system to be
maintained that will aid aircraft operators in determining the status
of the life-limited parts from inadvertently being installed that have
reached their life limit. This action reduces the risk of life-limited
parts being used beyond their life limits. This action also requires
that manufacturers of life-limited parts provide marking instructions,
when requested.
    Respondents: Approximately 8,000 air carriers, repair stations, and
mechanics.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 15 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 104,000 hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 5, 2017.
Ronda L. Thompson,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, Performance, Policy, and
Records Management Branch, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2017-12702 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P