[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 22, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36342-36349]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15466]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0330; FRL-8875-9]

2-methyl-2,4-pentanediol; Exemption from the Requirement of a
Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of 2-methyl-2,4-pentanediol (CAS Reg. No.
107-41-5) when used as an inert ingredient as a solvent in pesticide
formulations 40 CFR 180.910 and 180.930 for use on crops (pre-harvest
and post-harvest) and for direct application on animals without
limitations. 2-methyl-2,4-pentanediol is commonly referred to as
``hexylene glycol''. The FB Sciences, Inc., 153 N. Main Street, Suite
100, Collierville, TN 38017 submitted a petition to EPA under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting establishment
of an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation
eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for
residues of 2-methyl-2,4-pentanediol.

DATES: This regulation is effective June 22, 2011. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before August 22, 2011,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0330. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Dow, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number: (703) 305- 5533; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining

whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0330 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
August 22, 2011. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2
may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit a copy of
your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0330, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Petition for Exemption

    In the Federal Register of June 8, 2010 (75 FR 32466) (FRL-8827-8),
EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a,
announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 0E7693) by FB
Sciences, Inc., 153 N. Main Street, Ste. 100, Collierville, TN 38017.
The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.910 and 180.930 be amended by
establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for
residues of 2-methyl-2,4-pentanediol (CAS Reg. No.107-41-5) when used
as an inert ingredient as a solvent in pesticide formulations applied
to crops pre-harvest and post-harvest and to animals without
limitations. That notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared
by FB Sciences, Inc., the petitioner, which is available in the docket,
http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response
to the notice of filing.

III. Inert Ingredient Definition

    Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active
ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not
limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a
pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and
hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty
acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as
carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing
agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents;
and emulsifiers. The term ``inert'' is not intended to imply
nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active.
Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a
tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert
ingredients.

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the
pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to
infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical
residue* * *.''
    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably
foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human
health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to
pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the
inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert
ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures
that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA
is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from
aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with section 408(c)(2)(A) of FFDCA, and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for 2-methyl-2,4-pentanediol
including exposure resulting from the exemption established by this
action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with 2-
methyl-2,4-pentanediol follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature
of the adverse effects caused by 2-methyl-2,4-pentanediol as well as
the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-
adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the

toxicity studies are discussed in this unit.
    2- methyl-2,4-pentanediol (CAS Reg. No. 107-41-5) is an aliphatic
alcohol also known as: Hexylene glycol; diolane; and 1,1,3-
trimethyltrimethylene-diol. Non-pesticidal uses of 2-methyl-2,4-
pentanediol include use as a chemical intermediate, a selective solvent
in petroleum refining, a component of hydraulic fluids, a solvent for
inks, as an additive to cement, textile dye vehicles, a lubricant and
fuel additive, and as an ingredient in cosmetics and hair care
products. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved of the
use of 2-methyl-2,4-pentanediol as an indirect food additive such as in
adhesives in contact with food under 21 CFR parts 175-178.
    2-methyl-2,4-pentanediol is not acutely toxic to rats via the oral
route of exposure. An Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD)-SIDS (2001) report indicates LD50 ranges
from 2-4.47 g/kg. Acute dermal toxicity is low with dermal doses up to
2,000 milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg) that did not cause death (as cited in
OECD-SIDS, 2001). It is irritating to the skin and eyes, but not a skin
sensitizer in guinea pigs. It has low inhalation toxicity, with an
LC50 of 160 parts per million (ppm) (0.772 mg/L), which is
in excess of the saturated vapor concentration.
    In a 90-day subchronic toxicity study, 2-methyl-2,4-pentanediol was
administered by oral gavage to rats at dose levels of 50, 150, or 450
mg/kg/bw/day. In this study the functional observational battery, blood
chemistry, hematological parameters and histopathological examinations
were conducted. A functional observational battery test gave no
indication of neurotoxicity. In both sexes, hyperplasia,
hyperkeratosis, inflammatory cell infiltration and edema of the mucosa
and submucosa of the stomach were observed starting at 150 mg/kg/day.
These changes were indicative of a local irritative effect resulting
from the oral gavage procedure. Hepatocellular hypertrophy with
increased liver weight was observed at 450 mg/kg/day in both sexes, and
in males at 150 mg/kg/day. In the absence of degenerative or necrotic
changes these findings were considered to be adaptive responses. At 150
and 450 mg/kg/day, increased kidney weights and increased incidence of
acidophilic globules in the tubular epithelium in males were suggestive
of male rat specific alpha-2-microglobulin nephropathy, which is not
considered as an effect relevant to humans. Observed changes were
either fully or partially reversible over the 4-week recovery period.
There were no adverse effects on the reproductive organs. No effects
were observed at 50 mg/kg/day. A NOAEL of 450 mg/kg/day was determined
for systemic toxicity because the effects described were either
produced by irritation from the oral gavage procedure, or were
considered adaptive responses. A range-finding 14-day study gave
similar results.
    No guideline reproduction studies were available for assessment,
however, no adverse effects on reproductive organs (including testes,
prostate, seminal vesicles, epididymis, ovaries, vagina, and uterus)
were observed in the 90-day gavage study in which rats were
administered 2-methyl-2,4-pentanediol at doses up to 450 mg/kg/day.
Therefore, OECD SIDS concluded that no additional studies are required
under the SIDS program regarding fertility. EPA agrees with this
conclusion by the OECD.
    In a developmental toxicity study, pregnant rats were administered
30, 300, or 1,000 mg/kg/bw/day of 2-methyl-2,4-pentanediol by gavage in
5 mL/kg of vehicle on gestation days (GD) 6-15. The NOAEL for maternal
toxicity was 300 mg/kg/day based on a statistically significant
reduction in group mean body weight gain and food consumption at 1,000
mg/kg/day. There was a marginal, non-statistically significant
reduction in fetal body weight at 1,000 mg/kg/day. Marginally higher
incidences of fetal variations, some of which were statistically
significant (occipitals incompletely ossified, 21.6%; extra
thoracolumbar ribs, 18.7%; and hyoid arch not ossified, 18%), occurred
at 1,000 mg/kg/day. A delay in the normal ossification process was also
observed in fetuses, but this was considered by the study authors to be
related to reduced maternal body weight gain at this dose level. The
NOAEL and LOAEL for maternal and fetal developmental toxicity were
determined to be 300 and 1,000 mg/kg/day, respectively.
    In another developmental toxicity study, pregnant rats received
500, 1,200, or 1,600 mg/kg/bw/day of 2-methyl-2,4-pentanediol by gavage
in 10 mL/kg of vehicle on GD 6-17. At 1,200 and 1,600 mg/kg/day, dams
had ataxia and reductions in mean weight gain and food consumption. At
the 1,600 mg/kg/day, pregnant rats had mean weight loss, and one female
aborted prior to the end of the study. Maternal toxicity at these
levels corresponds to decreased fetal body weights and gravid uterine
weights. Additionally, at 1,600 mg/kg/day, there was one abortion and
one whole litter resorption. However, the number of fetal
malformations, such as increased incidence of skeletal variations
(delayed ossification, extra ribs), was not significantly different
from controls. A maternal NOAEL of 500 mg/kg/day was determined by the
Agency, and the same NOAEL was determined in the study for fetal
toxicity. These results support the results of a study described in
this unit and indicate that 2-methyl-2,4-pentanediol has low potential
for developmental toxicity.
    2-methyl-2,4-pentanediol is not genotoxic in either mammalian or
non-mammalian cells ``in vitro.'' It was negative for mutagenicity in
the Ames test, yeast cell assay and hamster ovary cell assay.
    Ten rats and a rabbit exposed to an aerosol of 2-methyl-2,4-
pentanediol at a concentration of 0.7 mg/L (about 145 ppm) for 7 hr/day
for 9 days survived with mild upper respiratory irritation. No
histopathological effects were reported.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

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

chronic reference dose (cRfD) was identified from the developmental
toxicity study in rats. In this study, the NOAEL (500 mg/kg/day) was
based on increased incidence of clinical signs, reductions in mean body
weight gain and food consumption seen at the LOAEL of 1,200 mg/kg/day
and above. This NOAEL was supported by the 90-day gavage toxicity study
in rats (NOAEL 450 mg/kg/day; highest dose tested). There was a lower
NOAEL (300 mg/kg/day) observed in the range finding study in rats based
on a statistically significant reduction in group mean body weight gain
and food consumption, and marginally higher incidences of fetal
variations seen at the LOAEL of 1,000 mg/kg/day. The differences
between the NOAELs of the range finding study and the developmental
toxicity study in rats were considered due to artifacts of dose
selection. An uncertainty factor 100X (10X for intraspecies variability
and 10X interspecies extrapolation) was applied to the NOAEL. No
additional uncertainty factor is necessary for use of the subchronic to
chronic study because the effects were observed at the limit dose of
1,000 mg/kg/day and above. The FQPA factor for increased susceptibility
of infant and children was reduced to 1X. Therefore, the cRfD is equal
to population adjusted dose (cPAD). This endpoint and the dose was also
used for dermal and inhalation exposure assessment for all exposure
scenarios. Inhalation and dermal absorption was assumed to be 100%.
This approach would provide a highly conservative estimate of risk via
the dermal and inhalation routes of exposure.

    Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for 2-methyl-2,4-pentanediol for Use in Human Risk
                                                   Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Point of departure and
         Exposure/scenario             uncertainty/safety    RfD, PAD, LOC for risk    Study and toxicological
                                             factors               assessment                  effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (General population       No acute endpoint of concern was identified in the available database.
 including infants and children).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary (All populations)..  NOAEL = 500 mg/kg/day.  Chronic RfD = 500 mg/   Developmental Toxicity
Incidental oral short-term and       UFA = 10x.............   kg/day.                 Study--rats LOAEL = 1,200
 intermediate term.                  UFH = 10x.............  cPAD = 500 mg/kg/day..   mg/kg/day based on reduced
                                     FQPA SF = 1x..........                           body weights in maternal
                                                                                animals, reduced fetal
                                                                                body weights.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dermal short and intermediate term.  100% absorption via
                                      dermal and inhalation
                                      routes; LOC MOE..
Inhalation short and intermediate    100...................
 term.
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation)..     No evidence of carcinogenicity. SAR analysis negative for carcinogenic
                                       alerts. Not mutagenic in mammalian and non-mammalian mutagenicity assays.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members
  of the human population (intraspecies). UFL = use of a LOAEL to extrapolate a NOAEL. UFS = use of a short-term
  study for long-term risk assessment. UFDB = to account for the absence of data or other data deficiency. FQPA
  SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD =
  reference dose. MOE = margin of exposure. LOC = level of concern.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to 2-methyl-2,4-pentanediol, EPA considered exposure under the
proposed exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. EPA assessed
dietary exposures from 2-methyl-2,4-pentanediol in food as follows:
    No acute endpoint of concern was identified in the database.
Therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment was not
conducted.
    i. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessments, EPA used food consumption information from the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) [1994-1996 and 1998] Nationwide
Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue
levels in food, no residue data were submitted for 2-methyl-2,4-
pentanediol. In the absence of specific residue data, EPA has developed
an approach which uses surrogate information to derive upper bound
exposure estimates for the subject inert ingredient. Upper bound
exposure estimates are based on the highest tolerance for a given
commodity from a list of high-use insecticides, herbicides, and
fungicides. A complete description of the general approach taken to
assess inert ingredient risks in the absence of residue data is
contained in the memorandum entitled ``Alkyl Amines Polyalkoxylates
(Cluster 4): Acute and Chronic Aggregate (Food and Drinking Water)
Dietary Exposure and Risk Assessments for the Inerts.'' (D361707, S.
Piper, 2/25/09) and can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0738.
    In the dietary exposure assessment, the Agency assumed that the
residue level of the inert ingredient would be no higher than the
highest tolerance for a given commodity. Implicit in this assumption is
that there would be similar rates of degradation (if any) between the
active and inert ingredient and that the concentration of inert
ingredient in the scenarios leading to these highest of tolerances
would be no higher than the concentration of the active ingredient.
    The Agency believes the assumptions used to estimate dietary
exposures lead to an extremely conservative assessment of dietary risk
due to a series of compounded conservatisms. First, assuming that the
level of residue for an inert ingredient is equal to the level of
residue for the active ingredient will overstate exposure. The
concentration of active ingredient in agricultural products is
generally at least 50% of the product and often can be much higher.
Further, pesticide products rarely have a single inert ingredient;
rather there is generally a combination of different inert ingredients
used which additionally reduces the concentration of any single inert
ingredient in the pesticide product in relation to that of the active
ingredient.

    Second, the conservatism of this methodology is compounded by EPA's
decision to assume that, for each commodity, the active ingredient
which will serve as a guide to the potential level of inert ingredient
residues is the active ingredient with the highest tolerance level.
This assumption overstates residue values because it would be highly
unlikely, given the high number of inert ingredients, that a single
inert ingredient or class of ingredients would be present at the level
of the active ingredient in the highest tolerance for every commodity.
Finally, a third compounding conservatism is EPA's assumption that all
foods contain the inert ingredient at the highest tolerance level. In
other words, EPA assumed 100% of all foods are treated with the inert
ingredient at the rate and manner necessary to produce the highest
residue legally possible for an active ingredient. In summary, EPA
chose a very conservative method for estimating what level of inert
residue could be on food, then used this methodology to choose the
highest possible residue that could be found on food and assumed that
all food contained this residue. No consideration was given to
potential degradation between harvest and consumption even though
monitoring data shows that tolerance level residues are typically one
to two orders of magnitude higher than actual residues in food when
distributed in commerce.
    Accordingly, although sufficient information to quantify actual
residue levels in food is not available, the compounding of these
conservative assumptions will lead to a significant exaggeration of
actual exposures. EPA does not believe that this approach
underestimates exposure in the absence of residue data.
    ii. Cancer. Chronic and carcinogenicity studies were not available
on 2-methyl-2,4-pentanediol. There is no evidence that 2-methyl-2,4-
pentanediol is carcinogenic. The Agency used a qualitative structure
activity relationship (SAR) database, DEREK Version 11, to determine if
there were structural alerts. No structural alerts were identified. In
addition, it is negative for mutagenicity in mammalian and non-
mammalian mutagenicity assays. 2-methyl-2,4-pentanediol is rapidly
metabolized and excreted as glucuronates. Based on weight-of-evidence
and low toxicity mentioned in this unit, 2-methyl-2,4-pentanediol is
not expected to be carcinogenic. Since the Agency has not identified
any concerns for carcinogenicity relating to 2-methyl-2,4-pentanediol,
a dietary exposure assessment to evaluate cancer risk was not
performed.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. For the purpose of the
screening level dietary risk assessment to support this request for an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for 2-methyl-2,4-
pentanediol, a conservative drinking water concentration value of 100
ppb based on screening level modeling was used to assess the
contribution to drinking water for the chronic dietary risk assessments
for parent compound. These values were directly entered into the
dietary exposure model.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets, swimming
pools, and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables). No
residential uses as a pesticide inert ingredient have been requested
and none are expected. Although 2-methyl-2,4-pentanediol is used in
cosmetics and hair care products, the Agency believes exposure and risk
from these routes of exposure to be negligible. The FDA includes 2-
methyl-2,4-pentanediol (i.e., hexylene glycol) in its list of Indirect
Additives Used in Food Contact Subtances. The exposure to 2-methyl-2,4-
pentanediol through hair color use is considered minimal because it is
a volatile chemical, treatment times are very short and absorption
through the scalp is limited. Based on these considerations, the Agency
concluded that there is no need to conduct aggregate exposure through
use of consumer products. Further, there are no reliable data with
which to estimate such exposures.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found 2-methyl-2,4-pentanediol to share a common
mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and 2-methyl-2,4-
pentanediol does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by
other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore,
EPA has assumed that 2-methyl-2,4-pentanediol does not have a common
mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding
EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of
toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see
EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The maternal and
developmental effects were only observed at the limit dose of 1,000 mg/
kg/day and above in the developmental toxicity study in rats. Maternal
and fetal toxicity were mainly manifested as decreases in body weights.
Marginally higher incidences of fetal variations were also observed at
the limit dose or above. There were no guideline reproduction studies
available on 2-methyl-2,4-pentanediol; however, no adverse effects on
reproductive organs (including testes, prostate, seminal vesicles,
epididymis, ovaries, vagina, and uterus) were observed at doses up to
450 mg/kg/day in a 90-day toxicity study in rats. In addition, the
reproductive indices were not affected in the two available
developmental toxicity studies in rats.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for 2-methyl-2,4-pentanediol is not
complete but considered as adequate for FQPA assessment given the low
toxicity of 2-methyl-2,4-pentanediol. No guideline reproduction studies
were available for assessment; however, no adverse effects on
reproductive organs (including testes, prostate, seminal vesicles,
epididymis, ovaries, vagina, and uterus) were observed in the 90-day
gavage study in which rats were administered 2-methyl-2,4-pentanediol
at doses up to 450 mg/kg/day. Therefore, OECD SIDS concluded that no
additional studies are required under the SIDS program regarding
fertility. EPA is in agreement

with the OECD conclusion. Chronic studies are also not available, but
the concern for chronic toxicity is low given the low toxicity of 2-
methyl-2,4-pentanediol.
    ii. No evidence of clinical signs of neurotoxicity was observed in
the available database. No evidence of neurobehavioral or
neuropathology was seen in a 90-day toxicity study in rats. There is no
indication that 2-methyl-2,4-pentanediol is a neurotoxic chemical and
there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional
UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence that 2-methyl-2,4-pentanediol results in
increased susceptibility in rats (as described in this unit).
    iv Immunotoxicity studies for 2-methyl-2,4-pentanediol were not
available for review. However, there was no evidence of immunotoxicity
in the available database.
    v. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100 percent crop treated (PCT) and tolerance-level residues. EPA
made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface
water modeling used to assess exposure to 2-methyl-2,4-pentanediol in
drinking water. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure
and risks posed by 2-methyl-2,4-pentanediol.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute (aPAD) and chronic (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
2-methyl-2,4-pentanediol is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
2-methyl-2,4-pentanediol from food and water will utilize 3.8% of the
cPAD for the U.S. population and Children 1-2 yrs of age 12.5% cPAD,
the population group receiving the greatest exposure. Based on the
explanation in this unit, regarding residential use patterns, chronic
residential exposure to residues of 2-methyl-2,4-pentanediol is not
expected.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
    A short-term adverse effect was identified; however, 2-methyl-2,4-
pentanediol is not currently used as an inert ingredient in pesticide
products that are registered for any use patterns that would result in
short-term residential exposure. Short-term risk is assessed based on
short-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because
there is no short-term residential exposure resulting from use as an
inert ingredient in pesticidal formulations and chronic dietary
exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately protective
cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess short-
term risk), no further assessment of short-term risk is necessary, and
EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating short-
term risk for 2-methyl-2,4-pentanediol.
    For the reasons discussed in Unit IV.C.3., short-term aggregate
exposure assessment was not conducted for non-pesticidal uses.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level). An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however, 2-
methyl-2,4-pentanediol is not currently used as an inert ingredient in
pesticide products that are registered for any use patterns that would
result in intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term
risk is assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus
chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term
residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been
assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as
protective as the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no
further assessment of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA
relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating
intermediate-term risk for 2-methyl-2,4-pentanediol. For the reasons
discussed in Unit IV.C.3., intermediate term aggregate exposure
assessment was not conducted for non-pesticidal uses.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. 2-methyl-2,4-
pentanediol is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore,
aggregate cancer risk was not performed.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to 2-methyl-2,4-pentanediol residues.

V. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation.

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint U.N. Food and
Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards
program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established a MRL for 2-methyl-2,4-pentanediol.

VI. Conclusions

    Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is
established under 40 CFR 180.910 and Sec.  180.930 for 2-methyl-2,4-
pentanediol. (CAS Reg. No. 107-1-41-5) when used as an inert ingredient
in pesticide formulations applied to crops and food animals without
limitations.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory

Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final
rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this
final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order
13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks
and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does
not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it
require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898,
entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or Tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
Tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or Tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

VIII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 10, 2011.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.910, the table is amended by adding alphabetically the
following inert ingredients to read as follows:

Sec.  180.910  Insert ingredients used pre-harvest and post-harvest;
exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Inert ingredients               Limits               Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
2-methyl-2,4-pentanediol (CAS     Without limitation  Growing crops and
 Reg..                                                 food animals
No.-107-41-5)...................

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. In Sec.  180.930, the table is amended by adding alphabetically the
following inert ingredients to read as follows:

Sec.  180.930  Insert ingredients applied to animals: exemption from
the requirement of a tolerance.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Inert ingredients               Limits               Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
2-methyl-2,4-pentanediol (CAS     Without limitation  Growing crops and
 Reg. No.-107-41-5).                                   food animals

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2011-15466 Filed 6-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 179 (Monday, September 16, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48607-48608]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19972]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14979-000]

Lock\+TM\ Hydro Friends Fund XXVII, LLC; Notice of Preliminary
Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions
To Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On March 6, 2019, Lock\+TM\ Hydro Friends Fund XXVII, LLC, filed an
application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the
Federal Power Act, proposing to study the feasibility of the Cowanesque
Dam Hydropower Project to be located at the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers' Cowanesque Dam on the Cowanesque River in Tioga County,
Pennsylvania. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is
to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application
during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the
permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise
enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express
permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A new 30-
foot-long, 30-foot-wide, 160-foot-high Large Frame Module; (2) two
turbine-generator units with a total rated capacity of 0.85 megawatt;
(3) a new 4-foot-long, 4-foot-wide, 3-foot-high pad-mounted
transformer; (4) a new 200-foot-long, 13-kilovolt transmission line
connecting the new transformer to an existing distribution line; and
(5) appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have an annual
generation of 3,700 megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Wayne Krouse, Lock\+TM\ Hydro Friends Fund
XXVII, LLC, P.O. Box 43796, Birmingham, AL 35243; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
ext. 709.
    FERC Contact: Woohee Choi; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/

ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the
end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper
copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should
include docket number P-14979-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14979) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: September 10, 2019.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-19972 Filed 9-13-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 92 (Friday, May 14, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26448-26450]
[FR Doc No: 2021-10203]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0706; FRL-10023-22-Region 3]

Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; Emissions Statement Rule
Certification for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This revision fulfills Pennsylvania's
emissions statement requirement for the 2015 ozone national ambient air
quality standard (NAAQS). This action is being taken under the Clean
Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 14, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2020-0706 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Serena Nichols, Planning &
Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-
2053. Ms. Nichols can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 23, 2020, the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted a revision to
the Pennsylvania SIP intended to satisfy the Commonwealth's obligations
under the CAA related to emissions statements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

I. Background

    On October 26, 2015, EPA revised the ozone NAAQS from 0.075 parts
per million (ppm) to 0.070 ppm. See 80 FR 65291. Subsequently, on June
4, 2018, EPA designated the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City (PA-
NJ-MD-DE) Area as a marginal nonattainment area for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS. See 83 FR 25776. Pennsylvania's portion of this area includes
Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia Counties. See 40
CFR 81.339.
    Section 182 of the CAA identifies plan submissions and requirements
for ozone nonattainment areas. Specifically, section 182(a)(3)(B) of
the CAA requires

that states develop and submit rules which establish annual reporting
requirements for certain stationary sources. Sources that are within
marginal (or worse) ozone nonattainment areas must annually report the
actual emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile
organic compounds (VOC) to the state. However, states may waive
reporting requirements for sources that emit under 25 tons per year
(tpy) of NOX and VOC if the state provides an inventory of
emissions from such class or category of sources. See CAA section
182(a)(3)(B)(ii).
    Additionally, Pennsylvania is located in the ozone transport region
(OTR) established by Congress in section 184 of the CAA. Pursuant to
section 184(b)(2), any stationary source that emits or has the
potential to emit at least 50 tpy of VOC shall be considered a major
stationary source and subject to the requirements which would be
applicable to major stationary sources if the area were classified as a
moderate nonattainment area. See CAA section 184. Thus, states within
the OTR are subject to plan requirements in CAA section 182(b)
applicable to moderate nonattainment areas. Also, section 182(f)(1) of
the CAA requires that the plan provisions required for major stationary
sources of VOC also apply to major stationary sources of NOX
for states with moderate (or worse) ozone nonattainment areas. A major
stationary source of NOX is defined as a stationary facility
or source of air pollutants which directly emits or has the potential
to emit 100 tpy or more of NOX. See CAA section 302(j).
Because Pennsylvania is located in the OTR, Pennsylvania sources that
are located in ozone attainment areas and emit above 50 tpy of VOC or
100 tpy of NOX are considered major sources and also subject
to the requirements of major stationary sources in moderate (or worse)
nonattainment area, such as an emissions statement submission required
by CAA section 182(a)(3)(B). See CAA sections 182(f) and 184(b)(2).

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    Pennsylvania's emissions statement requirements are codified at 25
Pa Code chapter 135. Specifically, section 135.21, in accordance with
CAA section 182(a)(3)(B), applies to NOX and VOC sources
within marginal (or worse) nonattainment areas, as well as major
NOX and VOC sources located in attainment areas located
within the OTR (i.e., the remainder of the Commonwealth). Affected
sources are required annually to provide PADEP with a statement
containing the source's actual NOX and VOC emissions, the
method used to calculate those emissions, the time period over which
the calculations are based, and a certification by an appropriate
company officer that the statement is accurate. 25 Pa Code 135.21 also
contains a waiver for sources emitting less than 25 tpy, in accordance
with CAA section182(a)(3)(B)(ii). Additionally, 25 Pa Code 135.5
contains recordkeeping requirements necessary to document the data
presented in the annual emissions statements.
    On January 12, 1995, EPA determined that 25 Pa Code sections 135.5
and 135.21 were adequate for purposes of implementing the requirements
of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) and took final action to incorporate those
sections into the Pennsylvania SIP. See 60 FR 2881. Additionally, on
June 6, 2018, EPA took final action to approve a SIP submittal from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in which PADEP certified that its existing
emissions statement regulations remained adequate to implement the
requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) as they pertained to the 2008
ozone NAAQS. Similarly, PADEP's April 23, 2020 submittal contains a
certification that the existing emissions statement program remains
adequate under the revised, 2015 ozone NAAQS.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA finds that PADEP's existing SIP-approved emissions statement
regulations continue to satisfy CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) because the
existing rules are applicable to the entire Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania and require stationary sources that emit NOX or
VOC (at required thresholds above 25 tpy in designated ozone
nonattainment areas and above 50 tpy VOC or 100 tpy NOX in
ozone attainment areas in the OTR) to submit an emissions statement to
PADEP detailing the sources' emissions. Therefore, EPA is proposing to
approve PADEP's April 23, 2020 submittal as a revision to the
Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues
discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before
taking final action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule, pertaining to Pennsylvania's SIP-
approved emissions statement regulations, does not have tribal
implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian
country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: May 6, 2021.
Diana Esher,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2021-10203 Filed 5-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register: September 15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 177)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 47150-47152]
[DOCID:fr15se09-25]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 73

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0700; Airspace Docket No. 09-AWP-4]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Modification of Restricted Areas and Other Special Use
Airspace; Fallon, NV

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend the time of designation and
using agency of nine restricted areas located in the vicinity of the
Fallon Naval Air Station (NAS), Fallon, NV, as part of a Department of
the Navy initiative to standardize the operating hours throughout the
Fallon Airspace Complex. The times of use are being expanded to meet
the critical need of the Navy for additional nighttime training, and
the using agency changes are administrative in accordance with a Navy
realignment of functions. Additionally, this action would modify the
times of use of the four military operation areas (MOAs) in the Fallon
Airspace Complex. Unlike restricted areas, which are designated under
14 CFR part 73, MOAs are not rulemaking airspace actions. However,
since the MOAs form an integral part of the Fallon Airspace Complex the
FAA is also seeking comment on the proposed MOA changes through this
NPRM. The MOA changes described here will also be published in the
National Flight Data Digest (NFDD). The Navy requested these airspace
changes to provide additional night training time to meet combat
readiness requirements currently being carried out in accordance with
14 CFR 99.7.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 30, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Dockets Operations, M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA docket No. FAA-2009-
0700 and Airspace Docket No. 09-AWP-4, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken McElroy, Airspace and Rules Group,
Office of System Operations Airspace and AIM, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2009-0700 and Airspace Docket No. 09-AWP-4) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Federal Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES
section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments
through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to FAA Docket No. FAA-2009-0700 and Airspace Docket No. 09-AWP-4.'' The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://
www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publicaitons/airspace_
amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and

phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Western Service Center, Operations
Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, WA 98055.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

Background

    The Fallon Airspace Complex consists of nine restricted areas and
four MOAs in the vicinity of the Fallon NAS, NV. Restricted areas are
regulatory airspace designations, under Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part 73, which are established to confine or
segregate activities considered hazardous to non-participating
aircraft. A MOA is a non-rulemaking type of special use airspace (SUA)
established to separate or segregate certain non-hazardous military
flight activities from aircraft operating in accordance with instrument
flight rules (IFR), and to identify for visual flight rules (VFR)
pilots where those activities are conducted. IFR aircraft may be routed
through an active MOA only when air traffic control can provide
approved separation from the MOA activity. VFR pilots are not
restricted from flying in an active MOA, but are advised to exercise
caution while doing so.
    Unlike restricted areas, which are designated through rulemaking
procedures, MOAs are non-rulemaking airspace areas that are established
administratively and published in the NFDD. Normally, MOA proposals are
not published in an NPRM, but instead, are advertised for public
comment through a nonrule circular that is distributed by an FAA
Service Center office to aviation interests in the affected area.
However, when a non-rulemaking action is connected to a rulemaking
action, FAA procedures allow for the non-rulemaking proposal to be
included in the NPRM. In such cases, the NPRM replaces the nonrule
circularization requirement. Because the proposed MOAs are an integral
part of the Fallon Airspace Complex, they are being included in this
NPRM.
    Approximately eighty percent of the current combat missions are
flown at night. It is critical that forces train in realistic
environments and the current times of use of the Fallon Airspace
Complex does not adequately support the Navy's needs.
    The proposed SUA changes are described in the following sections.

Proposed MOA Changes

Churchill Low MOA, NV
    Times of use. 0715 to 2245 Monday through Friday and 0800 to 1800
Saturday; other times by NOTAM.
Churchill High MOA, NV
    Times of use. 0715 to 2245 Monday through Friday and 0800 to 1800
Saturday; other times by NOTAM.
Ranch High MOA, NV
    Times of use. 0715 to 2245 Monday through Friday and 0800 to 1800
Saturday; other times by NOTAM.
Ranch MOA, NV
    Times of use. 0715 to 2245 Monday through Friday and 0800 to 1800
Saturday; other times by NOTAM.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 73 to modify the
designated times of use to restricted areas R-4803, Fallon; R-4804A &
B, Twin Peaks; R-4810, Desert Mountain; R-4812, Sand Springs; R-4813A &
B, Carson Sink; and R-4816 North & South, Dixie Valley, NV. These
changes are part of the Fallon NAS proposal. Specifically, the FAA is
proposing changing the current wording to include the phrase ``other
times by NOTAM''. This would allow the Navy to train between 2330 hours
and 0715 hours local to meet their training requirements. The Navy is
currently meeting these night training requirements in accordance with
14 CFR 99.7, Special Security Instructions. This action also would
reflect the using agency name change to USN, Naval Strike and Air
Warfare Center, Fallon, NV.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under Department of Transportation (DOT)
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
subtitle VII, part A, subpart I, section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it proposes to modify restricted area airspace at Fallon NAS,
Fallon, NV.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subjected to the appropriate environmental
analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts:
Policies and Procedures,'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73

    Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 73 as follows:

PART 73--SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE

    1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  73.48  [Amended]

    2. 73.48 is amended as follows:
* * * * *

R-4803 Fallon, NV [Amended]

* * * * *
    By removing the current times of designation and using agency
and substituting the following:
    Time of designation. 0715 to 2330 local time daily; other times
by NOTAM.
    Using agency. USN, Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center, Fallon,
NV.

R-4804A Twin Peaks, NV [Amended]

* * * * *
    By removing the current times of designation and using agency
and substituting the following:
    Time of designation. 0715 to 2330 local time daily; other times
by NOTAM.

    Using agency. USN, Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center, Fallon,
NV.

R-4804B Twin Peaks, NV [Amended]

* * * * *
    By removing the current times of designation and using agency
and substituting the following:
    Time of designation. Intermittent by NOTAM 0715 to 2330 local
time daily; other times by NOTAM.
    Using agency. USN, Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center, Fallon,
NV.
* * * * *

R-4810 Desert Mountains, NV [Amended]

* * * * *
    By removing the current times of designation and using agency
and substituting the following:
    Time of designation. 0715 to 2330 local time daily; other times
by NOTAM
    Using agency. USN, Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center, Fallon,
NV.
* * * * *

R-4812 Sand Springs, NV [Amended]

    By removing the current times of designation and using agency
and substituting the following:
    Time of designation. 0715 to 2330 local time daily; other times
by NOTAM
    Using agency. USN, Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center, Fallon,
NV.

R-4813A Carson Sink, NV [Amended]

* * * * *
    By removing the current times of designation and using agency
and substituting the following:
    Time of designation. 0715 to 2330 local time daily; other times
by NOTAM
    Using agency. USN, Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center, Fallon,
NV.

R-4813B Carson Sink, NV [Amended]

* * * * *
    By removing the current times of designation and using agency
and substituting the following:
    Time of designation. Intermittent by NOTAM 0715 to 2330 local
time daily; other times by NOTAM.
    Using agency. USN, Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center, Fallon,
NV.

R-4816N Dixie Valley, NV [Amended]

* * * * *
    By removing the current times of designation and using agency
and substituting the following:
    Time of designation. 0715 to 2330 local time daily; other times
by NOTAM
    Using agency. USN, Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center, Fallon,
NV.

R-4816S Dixie Valley, NV [Amended]

* * * * *
    By removing the current times of designation and using agency
and substituting the following:
    Time of designation. 0715 to 2330 local time daily; other times
by NOTAM
    Using agency. USN, Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center, Fallon,
NV.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 2, 2009.
Edith V. Parish,
Manager, Airspace and Rules Group.
[FR Doc. E9-22139 Filed 9-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 241 (Thursday, December 15, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 90840]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29886]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9956-49-Region 6]

Notice of Proposed Administrative Settlement Pursuant to the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is giving notice of two
proposed administrative settlements concerning the Scrub-A-Dubb Barrel
Company Superfund Site, located in the City of Lubbock, Lubbock County,
Texas.

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

ADDRESSES: The proposed settlements and additional background
information relating to the settlements are available for public
inspection at 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Copies of the
proposed settlements may be obtained from Robert Werner, Enforcement
Officer, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 or by calling (214)
665-6724. Comments should reference the Scrub-A-Dubb Barrel Company
Superfund Site, located in the City of Lubbock, Lubbock County, Texas
and EPA CERCLA Docket Number 06-09-16 for the Enterprise Products BBCT
LLC settlement and EPA CERCLA Docket Number 06-10-16 for the Foster
Testing, Inc. settlement and should be addressed to Robert Werner,
Enforcement Officer, at the address listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Salinas, Attorney, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 or call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with Section 122(h) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act,
as amended (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9622(h)(1), notice is hereby given of
two proposed administrative settlements concerning the Scrub-A-Dubb
Barrel Company Superfund Site, located in the City of Lubbock, Lubbock
County, Texas.
    The settlements require two settling parties, Enterprise Products
BBCT, LLC, and Foster Testing, Inc., to pay a total of $147,800.00 as
payment of response costs to the Hazardous Substances Superfund. The
settlements include a covenant not to sue pursuant to Section 107 of
CERCLA, 42, U.S.C. 9607.
    For thirty (30) days beginning the date of publication of this
notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to this
notice and will receive written comments relating to the settlement.
The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or
withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose
facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Agency's response to any
comments received will be available for public inspection at 1445 Ross
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

    Dated: November 24, 2016.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator (6RA).
[FR Doc. 2016-29886 Filed 12-14-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 93 (Monday, May 17, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26720-26721]
[FR Doc No: 2021-10303]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-10023-68-OAR]

Administration of Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Trading Program
Assurance Provisions for 2020 Control Periods

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of data availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing notice
of the availability of data on the administration of the assurance
provisions of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) trading
programs for the control periods in 2020. Total emissions of nitrogen
oxides (NOX) reported by Mississippi and Missouri units
participating in the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 Trading
Program during the 2020 control period exceeded the respective states'
assurance levels under the program. Data demonstrating the exceedances
and EPA's preliminary calculations of the amounts of additional
allowances that the owners and operators of certain Mississippi and
Missouri units must surrender have been posted in a spreadsheet on
EPA's website. EPA will consider timely objections to the data and
calculations before making final determinations of the amounts of
additional allowances that must be surrendered.

DATES: Objections to the information referenced in this notice must be
received on or before June 16, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your objections via email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include
``2020 CSAPR Assurance Provisions'' in the email subject line and
include your name, title, affiliation, address, phone number, and email
address in the body of the email.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions concerning this action
should be addressed to Garrett Powers at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The regulations for each CSAPR trading
program contain ``assurance provisions'' designed to ensure that the
emissions reductions required from each state

covered by the program occur within the state. If the total emissions
from a given state's affected units exceed the state's assurance level
under the program, then two allowances must be surrendered for each ton
of emissions exceeding the assurance level (in addition to the ordinary
obligation to surrender one allowance for each ton of emissions). In
the quarterly emissions reports covering the 2020 control period,
Mississippi and Missouri units participating in the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program reported emissions
that exceed the respective states' assurance levels under the program.
Mississippi units exceeded that state's assurance level by 260 tons,
resulting in a requirement for the surrender of 520 additional
allowances, and Missouri units exceeded that state's assurance level by
2,448 tons, resulting in a requirement for the surrender of 4,896
additional allowances.
    When a state's assurance level is exceeded, responsibility for
surrendering the required additional allowances is apportioned among
groups of units in the state represented by ``common designated
representatives'' based on the extent to which each such group's
emissions exceeded the group's share of the state's assurance level.
For the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program, the
procedures are set forth at 40 CFR 97.802 (definitions of ``common
designated representative,'' ``common designated representative's
assurance level,'' and ``common designated representative's share''),
97.806(c)(2), and 97.825. Applying the procedures in the regulations
for the 2020 control period, EPA has completed preliminary calculations
indicating that responsibility for surrendering 520 additional
allowances in Mississippi should be apportioned between the groups of
units operated by Entergy Corporation and Mississippi Power Company,
while responsibility for surrendering 4,896 additional allowances in
Missouri should be apportioned almost entirely to the group of units
operated by Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc., with much smaller
shares apportioned to the groups of units operated by the municipal
utilities of Chillicothe and Higginsville.
    In this document, EPA is providing notice of the data relied on to
determine the amounts of the exceedances of the Mississippi and
Missouri assurance levels discussed above, as required under 40 CFR
97.825(b)(1)(ii), and notice of the preliminary calculations of the
amounts of additional allowances that the owners and operators of
certain Mississippi and Missouri units must surrender as a result of
the exceedances, as required under 40 CFR 97.825(b)(2)(ii).\1\ By
October 1, 2021, EPA will provide notice of the final calculations of
the amounts of additional allowances that must be surrendered,
incorporating any adjustments made in response to objections received,
as required under 40 CFR 97.825(b)(2)(iii)(B). Each set of owners and
operators identified pursuant to the notice of the final calculations
must hold the required additional allowances in an assurance account by
November 1, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The regulations allow the notice under Sec.
97.825(b)(2)(ii) to be published approximately two months after the
notice under Sec.  97.825(b)(1)(ii), but in this instance EPA
already has all the information needed to prepare both notices and
therefore is publishing them together.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The data and preliminary calculations are set forth in an Excel
spreadsheet entitled
``2020_CSAPR_assurance_provision_calculations_prelim.xlsx'' available
at http://www.epa.gov/csapr/csapr-assurance-provision-nodas. The
spreadsheet contains data for the 2020 control period showing, for each
Mississippi and Missouri unit identified as affected under the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program, the amount of
NOX emissions reported by the unit and the amount of CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 2 allowances allocated to the unit,
including any allowances allocated from a new unit set-aside. The
spreadsheet also contains calculations for the 2020 control period
showing the total NOX emissions reported by all such units
in each state and the amounts by which the total reported
NOX emissions exceeded the respective states' assurance
levels under the program. Finally, the spreadsheet also includes
calculations for the 2020 control period showing, for each common
designated representative for a group of such units in each state, the
common designated representative's share of the total reported
NOX emissions, the common designated representative's share
of the state's assurance level, and the amount of additional CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 2 allowances that the owners and
operators of the units in the group must surrender.
    Any objections should be strictly limited to whether EPA has
identified the data and performed the calculations in the spreadsheet
correctly in accordance with the regulations. Objections must include
(1) precise identification of the specific data or calculations the
commenter believes are inaccurate, (2) new proposed data or
calculations upon which the commenter believes EPA should rely instead,
and (3) the reasons why EPA should rely on the commenter's proposed
data or calculations and not the data and calculations referenced in
this notice.

(Authority: 40 CFR 97.825(b))

Reid Harvey,
Director, Clean Air Markets Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs,
Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2021-10303 Filed 5-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 248 (Monday, December 29, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 78087]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30254]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0359; FRL 9920-75-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program
(Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``Underground Injection Control
(UIC) Program (Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No. 0370.25, OMB Control No. 2040-
0042) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). This is a proposed revision of the ICR, which is currently
approved through December 31, 2014. EPA requested public comments via
the Federal Register (79 FR 46437) on August 8, 2014, for a 60-day
comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public
comments. A fuller description of the ICR is provided in this request,
including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An agency may
not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before January 28,
2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OW-2014-0359, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to: OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert E. Smith, Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water/Drinking Water Protection Division, 4606M,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: 202-
564-3756; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The UIC program under The Safe Drinking Water Act
established a federal and state regulatory system to protect
underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) from contamination by
injected fluids. Injected fluids include trillions of gallons of
various types of fluids each year, such as hazardous waste; oil field
brines or produced water; mineral processing fluids; various types of
industrial fluids; automotive, sanitary and other wastes; and carbon
dioxide injected for enhanced recovery or geologic sequestration.
Owners or operators of underground injection wells must obtain permits,
conduct environmental monitoring, maintain records and report results
to the EPA or the state UIC primacy (primary enforcement) agency.
States must report to EPA on permittee compliance and related
information. Primacy agencies report mandatory information using
standardized forms and annual reports. UIC authorities use data to
ensure the protection of USDWs.
    Form Numbers: The forms are 7520-1, 7520-2A, 7520-2B, 7520-3, 7520-
4, 7520-6, 7520-7, 7520-8, 7520-9, 7520-10, 7520-11, 7520-12, 7520-14,
7520-16 and 7520-17.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of underground
injection wells and state UIC primacy agencies.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR parts 144
through 148).
    Estimated number of respondents: 45,811 (total).
    Frequency of response: Annual, semi-annual and quarterly.
    Total estimated burden: 1,714,046 hours (per year). Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $250,332,398 (per year), includes
$173,230,258 annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 700,646 hours in
the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This increase is due to adjustments associated with an
increase in the injection well inventory, primarily the number of Class
II permit applications expected to be approved, as well as increases in
the Class I and Class III inventories and the deployment of Class VI
(geologic sequestration) activities. These increases are offset by
burden reductions associated with decreases in the number Class V well
operators submitting inventory information, continued implementation of
electronic reporting by states and reduced state reporting frequencies.

Courtney Kerwin,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2014-30254 Filed 12-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 105 (Thursday, June 3, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 29766]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11662]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP20-527-000]

Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare a
AnEnvironmental Impact Statement for the Proposed; East Lateral Xpress
Project and Schedule for Environmental Review

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for
the East Lateral XPress Project (Project), proposed by Columbia Gulf
Transmission, LLC (Columbia Gulf) in Jefferson, Plaquemines, St. Mary,
and Lafourche Parishes, Louisiana. The EIS will tier off Commission
staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) and its findings and conclusions
for the Project issued on March 16, 2021, and respond to comments filed
on the EA.\1\ The EIS will assist the Commission in its consideration
of the Project's contribution to climate change and its decision-making
process to determine whether Columbia Gulf's proposed Project is in the
public convenience and necessity. The schedule for preparation of the
EIS is discussed in the ``Schedule for Environmental Review'' section
of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The EA for the Project is filed in Docket No. CP20-527-000
under Accession No. 20210316-3010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The National Environmental Policy Act Process

    The production of the EIS is part of the Commission's overall
National Environmental Policy Act review process. Commission staff will
independently analyze the proposed Project and prepare a draft EIS,
which will be issued for public comment. Commission staff will consider
all timely comments received during the comment period on the draft EIS
and revise the document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. Any
draft and final EIS will be available in electronic format in the
public record through eLibrary \2\ and the Commission's natural gas
environmental documents web page (https://www.ferc.gov/industries-data/natural-gas/environment/environmental-documents).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the
``Additional Information'' section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Schedule for Environmental Review

    This notice identifies the Commission staff's planned schedule for
completion of a final EIS for the Project, which is based on an
issuance of the draft EIS in June 2021.

Issuance of Notice of Availability of the final EIS--September 17, 2021
90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline--December 16, 2021

    If a schedule change becomes necessary for the final EIS, an
additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are
kept informed of the Project's progress.

Environmental Mailing List

    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for the Project which includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for Project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the Project and includes a mailing address with their
comments. Commission staff will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that Commission notices related to
this environmental review are sent to all individuals, organizations,
and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by
the proposed Project.
    If you need to make changes to your name/address, or if you would
like to remove your name from the mailing list, please complete one of
the following steps:
    (1) Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>stating your
request. You must include the docket number CP20-527-000 in your
request. If you are requesting a change to your address, please be sure
to include your name and the correct address. If you are requesting to
delete your address from the mailing list, please include your name and
address as it appeared on this notice. This email address is unable to
accept comments.

OR

    (2) Return the attached ``Mailing List Update Form'' (appendix 1).

Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EIS and to
keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets,
the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. 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 https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview to register for eSubscription.
    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number
in the ``Docket Number'' field. Be sure you have selected an
appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of all formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.

    Dated: May 27, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-11662 Filed 6-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P