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

Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0334

EPA Registration Division Contact: Shaja Joyner<PHONE_NUMBER>

Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4)

Pesticide Petition (PP) number: 7E8570

	EPA has received a pesticide petition (PP# 7E8570) from Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4), Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Rd. East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ 08540 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing general tolerances for residues of the herbicide pyroxasulfone 3-[[[5-(difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl]methyl]sulfonyl]-4,5-dihydro-5,5-dimethylisoxazole and its metabolites and degradates in or on the raw agricultural commodities Peppermint, tops at 0.15 ppm (parts per million), Peppermint, oil at 0.48 ppm, Spearmint, tops at 0.15 ppm, Spearmint, oil at 0.48 ppm and Soybean, vegetable, succulent at 0.2 ppm.

Additionally, regional tolerances are proposed for Grass, forage at 0.5 ppm and Grass, hay at 1.0 ppm.

 EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

 Residue Chemistry

      1. Plant Metabolism. Plant metabolism studies were conducted and accepted by the Agency for soybean and field corn.  A potato metabolism was submitted in a previous application and is pending review. The plant and animal metabolism of pyroxasulfone is well understood. Primary metabolic processes are cleavage between the two ring structures, side chain oxidation to carboxylic acid and demethylation.  Pyroxasulfone and its major metabolites M-1, M-3, M-25, and M-28 have been identified in the metabolism studies. The metabolism of pyroxasulfone in plants and animals is understood for the purposes of the proposed tolerances.

	2. Analytical method. EPA has approved an analytical enforcement methodology including liquid chromatography, mass spectrometry, and mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) to enforce the tolerance expression for pyroxasulfone.

	3. Magnitude of residues.

Grasses (Seed Crop) - A total of 4 grasses (seed crop) residue raw agricultural commodity (RAC) field trials were conducted in regions US EPA Regions 11 and 12. At each trial, one broadcast application of the test substance was made to the treated plots when the grass was in dormancy.  The application rates ranged from 0.174 to 0.192 lb ai/A per season.  All applications were made using appropriate spray equipment, and the spray volume was sufficient to provide adequate dispersal of the test substance.

      Sampling started in the untreated control plot and ended in the treated plot.  At all the field trials, forage samples were harvested 59-68 days after the last application and hay samples were harvested at boot to early seed head and dried.

      Residues of pyroxasulfone, M-1, M-3, and M-25 are extracted from the crop with acetonitrile/water. The extract is purified with liquid/liquid partition. For some compounds, the extracts were further cleaned up by solid phase extraction. The final extracts for each compound are diluted in 1:1 acetonitrile:water (v/v), and then submitted to LC-MS/MS analysis. Residues of M-28 are extracted with acetonitrile/water. The final extracts for each compound are diluted in 1:1 acetonitrile:water (v/v), and then submitted to LC-MS/MS analysis.

      Flumioxazin residues are extracted using acetone:water (4/1, v/v) and cleaned up via liquid-liquid partition with dichloromethane and Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) using ENVI-Carb/NH2 cartridges. The sample is then analyzed for flumioxazin by GC-MS detection in selective ion monitoring mode.

      The total residues of flumioxazin ranged from <0.02 to 0.18 ppm in forage samples and <0.02 to 0.032 ppm in hay sample. The total pyroxasulfone residues ranged from 0.13 to 0.25 ppm in forage samples and 0.14 to 0.56 ppm in hay samples.

      The proposed tolerances were calculated using the OECD MRL calculator. The proposed tolerance for pyroxasulfone for grass forage is 0.5 ppm and the proposed tolerance for grass hay is 1.0 ppm.

Mint -	A total of 5 mint residue raw agricultural commodity (RAC) field trials were conducted in US EPA Regions 5 and 11. Each trial consisted of at least one treated plot. At each trial, one treated plot received one broadcast application with rates ranging from 0.258 to 0.281 lb ai/A. The WA*05 and WI05 trials had an additional treated plot for processing samples with one broadcast application with rates ranging from 0.802 to 0.830 lb ai/A (3X).  All applications were made during dormancy. All applications were made using appropriate spray equipment, and the spray volume was sufficient to provide adequate dispersal of the test substance.

      Residues of pyroxasulfone, M-1, M-3, and M-25 are extracted from mint tops and mint oil with acetonitrile and water. The extract is purified with liquid/liquid partition. For some compounds, the extracts were further cleaned by solid phase extraction (SPE) cartridge. The final extracts for each compound are diluted in 1:1 acetonitrile:water (v/v), and then submitted to LC-MS/MS analysis.

	Residues of M-28 are extracted from mint tops with acetonitrile/water. Samples are cleaned up by SCX solid phase extraction. The final extracts are diluted in 1:1 acetonitrile:water (v/v), and then submitted to LC-MS/MS analysis.

	For mint oil, residues of M-28 are solubilized with acetonitrile and cleaned up by silica solid phase extraction. The final extracts are diluted in 1:1 acetonitrile:water (v/v), and then submitted to LC-MS/MS analysis.

      The residues of total pyroxasulfone ranged from 0.064 to 0.088 ppm in mint top samples. For samples treated at the 3X rate, total pyroxasulfone residues were 0.070 ppm in mint tops and 0.225 ppm in mint oil.

      The proposed tolerances were calculated using the OECD MRL calculator. The registrant is proposing tolerances for crop peppermint tops at 0.15 ppm; peppermint oil at 0.48 ppm; spearmint tops at 0.15 ppm; and spearmint oil at 0.48 ppm.

Crop Edamame (Vegetable Soybean) - A total of 6 edamame residue raw agricultural commodity (RAC) field trials were conducted in regions US EPA Regions 1, 2, 4, 5 and 5A.  Each trial consisted of two treated plots. One treated plot (TRT02) received a broadcast application made prior to crop and weed emergence. The application rates ranged from 0.218 to 0.248 lb ai/A (243.8 to 278.2 g ai/Ha) per application. The other treated plot (TRT03) received a broadcast application during the third trifoliate stage. The application rates ranged from 0.214 to 0.231 lb ai/A (240.2 to 258.8 g ai/Ha) per application.  All applications were made using appropriate spray equipment, and the spray volume was sufficient to provide adequate dispersal of the test substance.

      Sampling started in the untreated control plot and ended in the treated plot.  At all the field trials, succulent bean seeds without pods samples and pods with seeds samples were harvested when they were commercially mature. Additionally, at the OH*350 trial, duplicate pods with seeds samples were collected 66, 70, 74, 79, and 84 days after the last application.
      Residues of pyroxasulfone, M-1, M-3, and M-25 are extracted from the crop with acetonitrile and water. The extract is purified with liquid/liquid partition. The extracts were further cleaned by solid phase extraction (SPE) cartridge. The final extracts for each compound are diluted in 1:1 acetonitrile: water (v/v), and then submitted to LC-MS/MS analysis.

      Residues of M-28 are extracted with acetonitrile/water. Samples are cleaned up by SCX and DIOL solid phase extraction. The final extracts are diluted in 1:1 acetonitrile:water (v/v), and then submitted to LC-MS/MS analysis.

      The total residues of pyroxasulfone ranged from 0.064 to 0.97 ppm in succulent beans seeds without pods samples and from 0.064 to 0.084 ppm in pods with seed samples.  The proposed tolerances were calculated using the OECD MRL calculator. The registrant is proposing tolerances for soybean, vegetable succulent at 0.2 ppm.

 Confined Rotational Crop Study - Pyrazole or isoxazoline ring labeled [14]C KIH-485 was sprayed on confined plots of bare soil prior to planting soybean, radish and wheat at 30, 120 and 365 day intervals.  There were two treated plots for each plantback interval, one of which was wheat only and the other was planted half with soybean and half with radish.  All plots were treated at a target application rate of 300 g a.i./ha but the actual rate was 313 g a.i./ha.  Samples were analyzed by combustion analysis and liquid scintillation counting.  All treated crops contained radioactive residue >0.01 ppm and were subjected to further analysis.  The highest total radioactive residue (TRR), 5.2 ppm was found at the 30 day rotational in wheat straw; the residue level declined to 0.02 ppm at 485 days.  The primary metabolites were M-1 and M-3.
      Field Rotational Crop Study - A field rotational crop study was conducted in Georgia (GA) and Texas (TX) on a fine and coarse textured soil, respectively. The purpose of the study was to obtain raw agricultural commodity (RAC) residue data for pyroxasulfone and its metabolites M-1, M-3, M-25, M-28, and M-37 on rotational crops that are planted in plots that have been treated with Pyroxasulfone 85 WG at the proposed label rate and aged for various time intervals prior to planting the rotational plot. Each plot was treated at an appropriate time for growing the target crop and then allowed to age for the specified aging interval (120, 270, 300 and 365 days, nominal intervals).  There was no residue seen in any crop matrix at any sampling interval above the LOQ except for one replicate 120 day potato top sample which showed residue of M-1 at the LOQ (0.01 ppm).  As a result, neither pyroxasulfone nor any of its metabolites are expected to accumulate in rotational crops when Pyroxasulfone 85 WG is applied to target crops at the labeled rates.

      Cow Feeding Study - Holstein dairy cows were treated orally with gelatin capsules fortified with pyroxasulfone.  These were administered once daily for 28 consecutive days at dose levels of 0, 1.8, 5.4, and 18 ppm per cow/day on a dry weight basis amounting to concentrations of control, 1X, 3X and 10X dose groups, respectively.  These dose levels were equivalent to 0, 35.8 mg/cow/day, 109.9 mg/cow/day and 367.4 mg/cow/day, respectively.  Milk samples from the high dose animals (10X) were found to contain no residues of the parent compound or metabolites with the exception of 3 milk samples from day 7 which contained an average of 0.003 ppm parent pyroxasulfone.  No other milk samples from the other dose levels were found to contain residues of pyroxasulfone or metabolites.  No other matrix (muscle, liver, kidney or fat) was found to contain residues of pyroxasulfone or metabolites above LOQ.  The LOQs were 0.001 ppm in milk and 0.01 ppm in all other matrices.  Therefore, no tolerances for residues of pyroxasulfone and its metabolites are being proposed for meat, milk, eggs or other edible tissues of livestock or poultry.

B. Toxicological Profile

      1.  Acute Toxicity. Pyroxasulfone was found to be of low acute toxicity via oral, dermal and inhalation routes of administration.  It was not irritating to skin or eyes and was not a sensitizing agent.  The formulated product (85WG) was also of low acute toxicity and was found to be mildly irritating to skin, moderately irritating to eyes and was a dermal sensitizer.  In an acute neurotoxicity study in rats, there were no test substance-related effects on body weights, food consumption, clinical observations, functional observational battery assessments, motor activity measurements, or gross and microscopic neuropathology. The NOEL was demonstrated to be >2000 mg/kg/day in adult male and female rats.

      2.  Genotoxicity. Pyroxasulfone and its metabolites and impurities do not induce gene mutations in bacterial cells.  Pyroxasulfone does not induce gene mutations or chromosomal aberrations in in vitro mammalian cells or in vivo in the mouse micronucleus test.  Pyroxasulfone is non-genotoxic.

      3.  Reproductive and developmental toxicity. In a developmental toxicity study in rats, the NOEL for maternal and developmental toxicity was >1000 mg/kg/day, the highest dose tested.

	In a developmental toxicity study in rabbits, there were slight test substance-related effects on fetal weight and number of implant resorptions at 1000 mg/kg/day, the highest dose tested.  The NOEL for maternal toxicity was 1000 mg/kg/day. The NOEL for developmental toxicity was 500 mg/kg/day.

	In a rat one-generation reproductive study no reproductive toxicity was observed up to and including the high dose of 5000 ppm.  The NOEL for reproductive toxicity was >5000 ppm, the highest dose tested.  The NOEL for P1 adult rats was 25 ppm.  The NOEL for F1 offspring was 250 ppm and the NOEL for F1 adults was 250 ppm.

	In a rat two-generation reproduction study there were no test substance-related effects for reproductive toxicity at 2000 ppm, the highest concentration tested.   The NOEL for reproductive toxicity was >2000 ppm, the highest concentration tested. Test substance-related effects were observed at 2000 ppm in both adults and offspring. Therefore, the NOAEL for systemic toxicity was demonstrated to be 100 ppm (6.94  -  11.76 mg/kg/day) in both parents and offspring.

	In a developmental neurotoxicity study conducted on pyroxasulfone in mated female rats no reproductive effects were observed in the maternal animals at 2000 ppm, the highest concentration tested. No effects were observed on FOBs, auditory startle response habituation, pre-pulse inhibition, learning and memory of offspring.  A slight (5%) decrease in absolute brain weight at 900 mg/kg/day was present on PD 66, although no effect was present when evaluated on a % body weight basis.  Based on the effects observed in this study, the maternal and offspring systemic NOAEL is 900 mg/kg/day. The NOEL for functional development was judged to be 900 mg/kg/day. A NOEL for histomorphological development of the brain of the offspring was judged to be 300 mg/kg/day.

	Two studies were performed to assess the availability of the test substance to the pup.  These studies indicated that pyroxasulfone was available in the milk to nursing pups.

	4.  Subchronic toxicity. Pyroxasulfone was evaluated in a 28-day inhalation toxicity study in rats.  There were no test substance-related effects.  The NOEL was >200 mg/m3, the highest dose tested.

	In a 28-day dermal toxicity study there was a test substance-related increase in the incidence of minimal to mild cardiac myofiber degeneration with inflammation observed in males and females dosed with 1000 mg/kg/day and cutaneous myofiber degeneration with inflammation observed in the treated skin of males dosed with 1000 mg/kg/day.  The NOEL was 100 mg/kg/day.

	Immunotoxicity was evaluated in rats and mice following dietary exposure for 28 days.  There were no test substance related effects for any of the immunotoxicity parameters examined.  In the rat, systemic toxicity was limited to reductions in body weight and food consumption.  The NOEL for immunotoxicity was 7500 ppm (529 and 570 mg/kg in males and females) and the NOEL for systemic effects was 250 ppm (18 and 19 mg/kg in males and females).  In the mouse, the NOEL for immunotoxicity was 4000 ppm (633 mg/kg/day males: 791 mg/kg/day females) and the NOEL for systemic effects was 400 ppm (61 mg/kg males: 77 mg/kg females).

	Pyroxasulfone was evaluated in 13-week oral toxicity studies in rats, mice and dogs. In the 13 week mouse study, no test substance-related effects on in-life and clinical pathology parameters were observed at any level tested. Test substance-related effects at 2500 ppm were limited to an increased incidence of minimal to mild chronic progressive nephropathy in female mice and increased liver weight in males and females fed 2500 ppm.  The NOEL was 250 ppm for female mice (51.2 mg/kg/day).  The NOEL for male mice was 2500 ppm (394.0 mg/kg/day).

	 In the 13 week rat study, a NOEL of 250 ppm for male and female rats corresponded to mean daily intake values of 16.4 and 20.6 mg/kg/day in males and females, respectively.  Test substance related effects were increased cardiac myofiber degeneration with inflammation and diffuse mucosal hyperplasia of the urinary bladder.  Increased liver weights and centrilobular hypertrophy were also observed in 2500 ppm males and females. In a second study evaluating recovery, full or partial recovery was evident in all the above effects apart from kidney weights in females with all microscopic findings in the liver, heart, muscle and pancreas of 5000 ppm animals comparable to control rats indicating a complete reversal of the treatment-related findings noted at the terminal sacrifice.

	In an oral 90 day toxicity study in beagle dogs administered pyroxasulfone in a capsule, the NOEL was 2.0 mg/kg. The only effects noted were degeneration of muscle fiber of the musculature portion of the diaphragm, hyperplasia of the satellite cell of the muscle and nerve fiber degeneration of the sciatic nerve in one 10mg/kg/day group male only.  In a second study dosed with 0 or 15 mg/kg of pyroxasulfone, male dogs showed a decrease in body weight and histopathology similar to the full study.

	Pyroxasulfone was evaluated in a subchronic 90 day neurotoxicity dietary study in rats.  There were no effects on body weights, food consumption, clinical observations, FOB assessments, motor activity measurements, or gross and microscopic neuropathology. The NOEL was >2500 ppm, the highest dose tested, for male and female rats corresponding to mean daily intake values of 161.48 and 199.59 mg/kg/day in males and females, respectively.

      5.  Chronic toxicity. Chronic toxicity studies were conducted in the rat and dog. In the rat one year chronic toxicity study test substance-related effects occurred at 1000 ppm and above that included reduced body weight parameters and microscopic findings in the liver (centrilobular hepatocellular hypertrophy in males), heart (increased cardiomyopathy in females) and urinary bladder (mucosal hyperplasia in males and females) and urinary bladder hyperplasia considered to be secondary to inflammation or irritation.  At 2000 ppm, these effects were accompanied by increased clinical observations of red discharge from the penis and associated red-stained cageboards as well as increased liver and kidney weights. A slight increase in liver and kidney weights was observed in the 2000 ppm male and female dietary exposure groups. The NOEL is 50 ppm (2.22 and 3.12 mg/kg/day for males and females, respectively).

	In a one-year dog study beagle dogs/sex/dose were administered capsules containing 0.0, 0.2, 2.0 and 10.0 mg/kg/day.  Adverse test article-related findings were limited to the 10.0 mg/kg/day group, the highest dose tested and not all animals at the 10 mg/kg/day dosage had clear test-article related abnormal observations.  Adverse changes in the clinical pathology parameters were increases in creatine kinase, aspartate aminotransferase and change in the pathology limited to the sciatic nerve and spinal cord.  The NOAEL is 2.0 mg/kg/day.

	The carcinogenic potential of pyroxasulfone was evaluated in rats and mice. The Agency has classified pyroxasulfone as "Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans" at doses that do not cause crystals with subsequent calculi formation resulting in cellular damage of the urinary tract.

      6.  Animal metabolism.  In the rat, pyroxasulfone is rapidly and completely eliminated.  Between 80 to 90% of pyroxasulfone was eliminated in the urine during the first 24 hours and elimination was essentially complete after 48 to 72 hours.  Absorption was calculated (bile and urine) at 76%.  Maximum plasma concentrations were achieved at 2 hours in the low and 11 hours in the high dose animals.  At 96 hours only 7% of the low dose and <0.5% of the high dose was present in the carcass demonstrating the near complete elimination of pyroxasulfone.  Of the radioactivity present in the animals, the highest levels were seen in the liver and kidney.  The major metabolites were a carboxylated (pyrazole ring methyl group) and cleavage products between the isoxazoline and pyrazole ring structure with subsequent carboxylation.  The absorption, distribution, metabolism and elimination of pyroxasulfone is unaffected by sex or treatment regimen.

	In a preliminary study in the dog, pyroxasulfone is rapidly eliminated with 76.9% of radioactivity excreted within 24 hours.  Excretion is approximately equal in urine and feces. The terminal half life was 89.58 hr and 40.80 hr in blood and plasma, respectively.  The feces were found to contain only unchanged pyroxasulfone while no parent molecule was found in the urine.  At 120 hr after dosing, the levels of radioactivity in the tissues were highest in the liver and blood.

	In a preliminary mouse metabolism study, 73% of the applied dose of pyroxasulfone was excreted in urine within 24 hours of dosing.  Pyroxasulfone was rapidly absorbed and distributed through the tissues of the mouse but by 24 hours after dosing, radioactivity concentrations in the majority of tissues were indistinguishable from background levels.

	Metabolism studies in livestock and poultry (Nature of Residue Studies with Goat and Hen) with repeated dose established that pyroxasulfone was rapidly metabolized and excreted and that there was minimal transmittal of residues of pyroxasulfone and its metabolites to meat or milk.  For goats fed 10 ppm of radiolabeled pyroxasulfone, the highest residues (TRR) were seen in liver and kidney.  In the hen, fed 10 ppm, the highest residue was seen in liver and muscle.

      7.  Metabolite toxicology. Three plant metabolites and three impurities were evaluated in acute oral toxicity studies.  All six test substances evaluated showed LD50's >2000 mg/kg similar to the parent, pyroxasulfone.  Two metabolites were further assessed in a 14 day toxicity study in rats.  The NOEL for each of the metabolites was > 1000 mg/kg.  The same three metabolites and impurities were evaluated in a bacterial gene mutation test with and without activation.  All test substances were non-genotoxic.

      8.  Endocrine disruption. Pyroxasulfone does not belong to a class of chemicals known or suspected of having adverse effects on the endocrine system.  There is no evidence that pyroxasulfone has any effect on endocrine function in developmental, reproduction or developmental neurotoxicity studies.  Furthermore, histological investigation of endocrine organs in chronic dog, rat and mouse studies did not indicate that the endocrine system is targeted by pyroxasulfone.

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. It can be concluded with reasonable certainty that residues of pyroxasulfone in food will not result in unacceptable levels of human health risk. Using the approved tolerances for other crops and the proposed tolerances for grasses (seed crop), mint and edamame both the acute and chronic dietary exposure MOEs for the overall US population and 25 population subgroups are above the EPA level of concern.

	i. Food. Acute and chronic dietary exposure assessments were conducted using a Tier I approach.  This Tier I assessment incorporated tolerance level residues and 100% crop-treated in the DEEM[TM] (Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model; Exponent, Inc., v.4.02) software system.  The acute reference dose (aRfD) used was 1 mg/kg/day based on the most current risk assessments conducted by the EPA for dried shelled pea and bean (except soybean) Crop Subgroup 6C, flax, peanut and sunflower crop subgroup 20B dated January 31, 2017. The chronic toxicological endpoint selected for assessment of risk following chronic dietary exposure was 2 mg/kg/day based on the one-year chronic feeding dog study with a NOEL of 2 mg/kg/day. The chronic reference dose (cRfD) was determined to be 0.02 mg/kg/day assuming the cRfD is 1 percent of the NOEL. Using the approved tolerances for corn, cotton, crop subgroup 6C, flax, peanut, soybean, sunflower and other crop subgroup 20B crops, and wheat with the proposed tolerances for bulb vegetables, tuberous and corm vegetables, grass (seed crop), mint and edamame the acute and chronic dietary exposure Margin of Exposure (MOEs) for the overall US population and 25 population subgroups are above the EPA level of concern. Acute exposure to the total US population is 1.15% of the aRfD.  The most exposed population in the acute assessment is all infants at 3.89% of the aRfD at the 95th percentile. Chronic exposure to the total US population is 19.0% of the RfD. The most exposed population is all infants at 67.7% of the RfD for chronic exposure. It can be concluded with reasonable certainty that residues of pyroxasulfone in food will not result in unacceptable levels of human health risk.

	ii. Drinking water. Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of pyroxasulfone for acute exposure are estimated to be 17 ppb for surface water and 210 ppb for ground water. EDWCs of pyroxasulfone for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 3.2 ppb for surface water and 174 ppb for ground water. It can be concluded with reasonable certainty that residues of pyroxasulfone in drinking water will not result in unacceptable levels of human health risk.

2. Non-dietary exposure.

	i. Occupational exposure Pyroxasulfone is a wettable granule formulation to be applied to bulb vegetables, corn, cotton, flax, peanut, pulse crops, soybeans, tuberous and corm vegetables, the sunflower subgroup (20B), wheat, and fallow land using groundboom, chemigation, or aerial spray equipment. The proposed crops are grasses (seed crop), mint and edamame. The potential exposures and associated risks for handlers mixing, loading and applying pyroxasulfone and for workers re-entering treated areas are based on the proposed label for Pyroxasulfone 85WG Herbicide (pyroxasulfone 85% dry flowable formulation). The maximum application rate is 0.27 lb ai/acre (flax, peanut, pulse crops, sunflower and potato). The maximum application rates for the crops addressed in this Notice of Filing are 0.27 lb ai/acre for mint, 0.18 lb ai/acre for grass grown for seed, and 0.22 lb ai/acre for edamame.  Pyroxasulfone 85 WG may be applied preplant surface, preplant incorporated, preemergence, early postemergence, postemergence layby, or in the fall.

Short- and intermediate-term dermal and inhalation exposures are predicted for occupational handlers mixing, loading, and applying pyroxasulfone. Since pyroxasulfone-specific exposure data are not available, handler scenarios were assessed using the EPA Occupational Pesticide Handler Unit Exposure Surrogate Reference Table - Revised November 2016. The occupational handler exposure and risk estimates for pyroxasulfone are listed below.  The estimates are for the crops, as noted, with the highest operator exposure for each scenario.

     Occupational Handler Exposure & Risk Estimates for Pyroxasulfone
                    Short- & Intermediate-Term Exposure
                      Unit Exposure[1] (mg/lb ai handled)
                               Application Rate
                                   (lb ai/A)
                           Units Treated[2] (A/day)
                    Average Daily Dose[3] (mg ai/kg bw/day)
                     Short- & Intermediate-Term MOE[4]
Mixer/Loader  -  Dry Flowable  -  Open Loading for Aerial Application  -  Flax, Peanut
                                    Dermal
                                    0.0516
                                     0.27
                                     1200
                                     0.21
                                      490
                                  Inhalation
                                    0.00179
                                     0.27
                                     1200
                                    0.0071
                                      280
Mixer/Loader  -  Dry Flowable  -  Open Loading for Groundboom Application - Flax, Peanut
                                    Dermal
                                    0.0516
                                     0.27
                                      200
                                     0.034
                                     2,900
                                  Inhalation
                                    0.00896
                                     0.27
                                      200
                                    0.0060
                                      340
Mixer/Loader  -  Dry Flowable  -  Open Loading for Chemigation  -  Flax, Peanut, Pulse crops, Sunflower, Potato, Mint
                                    Dermal
                                    0.0516
                                     0.27
                                      350
                                     0.060
                                     1,700
                                  Inhalation
                                    0.00896
                                     0.27
                                      350
                                     0.010
                                      190
              Applicator  -  Liquids  -  Aerial  -  Flax, Peanut
                                    Dermal
                                    0.00208
                                     0.27
                                     1200
                                    0.0083
                                    12,000
                                  Inhalation
                                   0.0000049
                                     0.27
                                     1200
                                   0.000020
                                    102,000
             Applicator  -  Liquids  -  Groundboom - Flax, Peanut
                                    Dermal
                                    0.0161
                                     0.27
                                      200
                                     0.011
                                     9,400
                                  Inhalation
                                    0.00471
                                     0.27
                                      200
                                    0.00023
                                     8,900
[1] Unit Exposure (UE) = mg ai/lb ai handled from Occupational Pesticide Handler Unit Exposure Surrogate Reference Table - Revised November 2016.  PPE = long-sleeve shirt, long pants, socks, shoes, gloves and PF5 respirator (latter for aerial mixer/loader only).
[2] Units Treated taken from Science Advisory Council for Exposure, Standard Operating Procedure 9.1, Standard Values for Daily Acres Treated in Agriculture, Rev. 25, September 2001.
[3] Average Daily Dose (ADD) = Unit Exposure x Application Rate x Units Treated x Absorption Factor / Body Weight (80 kg).  Dermal absorption factor = 100%, inhalation absorption factor = 100%.
[4] Margin of Exposure (MOE) = NOAEL (mg/kg/day) / ADD (mg/kg/day); NOAELdermal = 100 mg/kg/day, NOAELinhalation = 2.0 mg/kg/day for all durations.

Short- and intermediate-term dermal exposures are predicted for post-application exposure to workers performing typical agricultural tasks.  Since pyroxasulfone-specific exposure data are not available, post-application scenarios were assessed using Science Advisory Council for Exposure (ExpoSAC) Policy 3  -  Revised January 2017. The occupational post-application exposure and risk estimates for pyroxasulfone are listed below.

Occupational Post-Application Exposure & Risk Estimates for Pyroxasulfone
                    Short- & Intermediate-Term Exposure
                                     Crop
                                   Activity
                      Transfer Coefficient[1] (cm[2]/hr)
                               Application Rate
                                   (lb ai/A)
                    Average Daily Dose[2] (mg ai/kg bw/day)
                     Short- & Intermediate-Term MOE[3]
                                    Dermal
                          Corn, Irrigation (hand set)
                                     1900
                                     0.21
                                     0.11
                                      880
                                    Dermal
                               Cotton, Scouting
                                      210
                                     0.11
                                    0.0066
                                    15,000
                                    Dermal
                               Edamame, Scouting
                                     1100
                                     0.22
                                     0.068
                                     1,500
                                    Dermal
                                Flax, Scouting
                                     1100
                                     0.27
                                     0.082
                                     1,200
                                    Dermal
                 Grasses Grown for Seed, Irrigation (hand set)
                                     1,900
                                     0.18
                                     0.095
                                     1,000
                                    Dermal
                          Mint, Irrigation (hand set)
                                     1900
                                     0.27
                                     0.142
                                     1,000
                                    Dermal
                           Bulb Onion, Hand Weeding
                                     4200
                                     0.13
                                     0.20
                                      490
                                    Dermal
                             Peanut, Weeding, Hand
                                      70
                                     0.27
                                    0.0052
                                    19,000
                                    Dermal
                         Potato, Irrigation (hand set)
                                     1900
                                     0.27
                                     0.19
                                      520
                                    Dermal
          Pulse (Dried Shelled Beans and Peas), Irrigation (hand set)
                                     1900
                                     0.27
                                     0.14
                                      700
                                    Dermal
                              Soybeans, Scouting
                                     1100
                                     0.19
                                     0.057
                                     1,700
                                    Dermal
                                   Sunflower
                                      90
                                     0.27
                                     0.082
                                     1,200
                                    Dermal
                                Wheat, Scouting
                                     1100
                                     0.13
                                     0.041
                                     2,400
[1] Transfer Coefficient from Science Advisory Council for Exposure (ExpoSAC) Policy 3  -  Revised January 2017.  PPE = long-sleeve shirt, long pants, socks, shoes.
[3] Average Daily Dose (ADD) = Transfer Coefficient (TC) x Dislodgeable Foliar Residue (DFR) x Duration * Absorption Factor / Body Weight (80 kg).  DFR = 25% * Application Rate, Duration = 8 hrs/day, Dermal Absorption Factor = 100%.
[4] Margin of Exposure (MOE) = NOAEL (mg/kg/day) / ADD (mg/kg/day); NOAELdermal = 100 mg/kg/day for all durations.

All occupational handler and post-application exposures from agricultural applications of pyroxasulfone result in MOEs greater than 100 and therefore do not exceed HED's level of concern.

	ii. Residential (Non-occupational) exposure and risk  There are no proposed uses of pyroxasulfone which would lead to direct exposure to residents, either through mixing, loading and application or due to post application exposure; however, there are potential indirect post-application exposures to adults and children due to drift onto residential lawns from agricultural applications.  These indirect post-application scenarios were assessed based on the proposed label for Pyroxasulfone 85WG Herbicide (pyroxasulfone 85% dry flowable formulation) using draft Residential Exposure Assessment Standard Operating Procedures - Addenda 1: Consideration of Spray Drift (November 1, 2013). The greatest indirect residential exposure potential is from aerial application to flax, peanuts, and pulse crops. The residential post-application exposure and risk estimates for pyroxasulfone are listed below.

         Residential Exposure & Risk Estimates for Pyroxasulfone
                    Short- & Intermediate-Term Exposure
                                   Lifestage
                      Drift Application Rate[1] (lb ai/A)
                    Average Daily Dose[2] (mg ai/kg bw/day)
                     Short- & Intermediate-Term MOE[3]
                               High Contact Lawn
                                    Dermal
                                     Adult
                                     0.050
                                     0.019
                                     5,400
                                    Dermal
                               1 to <2 years
                                     0.050
                                     0.037
                                     2,700
                                 Hand-to Mouth
                                Incidental Oral
                               1 to <2 years
                                     0.050
                                    0.00076
                                    130,000
                                Object-to-Mouth
                                Incidental Oral
                               1 to <2 years
                                     0.050
                                   0.000023
                                   4,400,000
                                Soil Ingestion
                                Incidental Oral
                               1 to <2 years
                                     0.050
                                   0.0000017
                                  59,000,000
[1] Drift Application Rate (ARdrift)= Application Rate * Drift Factor.  Application rate = 0.27 lb ai/A.  Drift Factor = 0.257 from Exposure Assessment Standard Operating Procedures - Addenda 1: Consideration of Spray Drift (November 1, 2013)
[3] Average Daily Dose (ADD) for each exposure scenario was calculated using the algorithms in the Standard Operating Procedures for Residential Pesticide Exposure Assessment: October 2012.  ARdrift was used in place of application rate in exposure calculations.
[3] Margin of Exposure (MOE) = NOAEL (mg/kg/day) / ADD (mg/kg/day); NOAELdermal = 100 mg/kg/day, NOAELincidental oral = 100 mg/kg/day for all durations.

All adult and children's exposures due to drift from agricultural applications of pyroxasulfone result in MOEs greater than 100 and therefore do not exceed HED's level of concern.

D. Cumulative Effects

	Pyroxasulfone represents a new class of pyrazole herbicides.  No other products are known to have the same mode of action as pyroxasulfone. Therefore, a cumulative assessment is not appropriate at this time.

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. The toxicity database for pyroxasulfone is complete. Based on the NOEL of 2 mg/kg/day from a 1-year toxicity study in the dog, proposed uses represent 19.0% percent of the cRfD of 0.02 mg/kg/day for the total US population.  The aRfD used was 1 mg/kg/day as referenced in EPA's dietary assessment for dried shelled pea and bean (except soybean) Crop Subgroup 6C, flax, peanut and sunflower crop subgroup 20B dated January 31, 2017. The percent aRfD for the US population was 3.89% for the 95[th] percentile. There is reasonable certainty that no harm to the U.S. population will result from the proposed uses of pyroxasulfone.

	2. Infants and children. The toxicity database for pyroxasulfone is complete.  The database includes acute, subchronic, chronic, mutagenicity, genotoxicity, developmental, reproduction, neurotoxicity and immunotoxicity studies on pyroxasulfone and acute mutagenicity and genotoxicity studies on several metabolites.  The weight of evidence indicates that infants and children are not expected to be more sensitive to pyroxasulfone than are adults.  Consequently, EPA reduced the FQPA Safety Factor from 10x to 1x.

F. International Tolerances.

	Tolerances are approved on wheat, barley, triticale and winter legume in Australia. Tolerances are approved for corn, soybean, wheat, peanut (import tolerance), pulse crops and flax in Canada.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 143 (Tuesday, July 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48783-48784]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17522]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. Cp16-478-000]

Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on July 11, 2016, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP
(Gulf South), 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, Texas 77046, filed
an application pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA)
requesting authorization to construct and operate its St. Charles
Parish Expansion Project to provide 133,333 dekatherms per day to serve
Entergy Louisiana, LLC. Specifically, Gulf South proposes to construct:
(i) A new 5,000 horsepower compressor station near Montz, Louisiana
(Montz Compressor Station); and (ii) approximately 900 ft of new 16-
inch-diameter pipeline, all facilities located in St. Charles and St.
John the Baptist Parishes, Louisiana. Gulf South estimates the cost of
the St. Charles Parish Expansion Project to be $29,721,360, all as more
fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission
and open to public inspection. The filing is available for review at
the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application may be directed to J. Kyle
Stephens, Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, Gulf South Pipeline
Company, LP, 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, Texas 77046, by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, by facsimile at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will either:
complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record

for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit five copies of filings made in the proceeding with the
Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other
party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of
Commission orders in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and five copies of the protest or intervention to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on August 8, 2016.

    Dated: July 18, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-17522 Filed 7-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 180 (Monday, September 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 57102]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22810]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4080-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Louisiana; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-4080-DR), dated August 29, 2012, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: August 31, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Louisiana is hereby amended to include the Individual
Assistance program for the following areas among those areas determined
to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster
by the President in his declaration of August 29, 2012.

    Jefferson, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. John the Baptist, and
St. Tammany Parishes for Individual Assistance (already designated
for debris removal and emergency protective measures (Categories A
and B), including direct federal assistance, under the Public
Assistance program).

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2012-22810 Filed 9-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: May 27, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 102)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 30326-30328]
[DOCID:fr27my08-15]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 40

[Docket No. RM08-7-000]

Modification of Interchange and Transmission Loading Relief
Reliability Standards; and Electric Reliability Organization
Interpretation of Specific Requirements of Four Reliability Standards

May 16, 2008.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Supplemental Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: On April 21, 2008, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NOPR) that proposes, inter alia, to approve interpretations
of specific requirements of Commission-approved Reliability Standards
submitted to the Commission for approval by the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation (NERC).

Pursuant to section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Commission
supplements the NOPR by proposing to approve NERC's modified
interpretation of Reliability Standard BAL-005-0 (Automatic Generation
Control), Requirement R17.

DATES: Comments for this Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking are
due June 12, 2008, concurrent with the comment due date for the NOPR
issued on April 21, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number by any
of the following methods:
     Agency Web Site: http://www.ferc.gov. Documents created
electronically using word processing software should be filed in native
applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned format.
     Mail/Hand Delivery. Commenters unable to file comments
electronically must mail or hand deliver an original and 14 copies of
their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of
the Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Patrick Harwood (Technical Information), Office of Electric
Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20426.
Christopher Daignault (Legal Information), Office of the General
Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

May 16, 2008.
    1. On April 21, 2008, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NOPR) that proposes, inter alia, to approve interpretations
of specific requirements of Commission-approved Reliability Standards
submitted to the Commission for approval by the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation (NERC).\1\ Pursuant to section 215 of the
Federal Power Act (FPA),\2\ the Commission supplements the NOPR by
proposing to approve NERC's modified interpretation of Reliability
Standard BAL-005-0 (Automatic Generation Control), Requirement R17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Modification of Interchange and Transmission Loading Relief
Reliability Standards; and Electric Reliability Organization
Interpretation of Specific Requirements of Four Reliability
Standards, 73 FR 22,856 (Apr. 28, 2008), FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
32,632 (2008).
    \2\ 16 U.S.C. 824o (Supp. V 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

A. Regulatory History

    2. On December 19, 2007, NERC submitted for Commission approval
interpretations of requirements in four Commission-approved Reliability
Standards, including an interpretation of BAL-005-0, Requirement
R17.\3\ On April 15, 2008, NERC submitted a request to withdraw the
interpretation of Requirement R17 and substitute a revised
interpretation of the same requirement (referred to by NERC as
``interpretation (b)'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission approved BAL-005-0 in Order No. 693.
Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System, Order No.
693, 72 FR 31,452, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242, at P 396 (2007),
order on reh'g, Order No. 693-A, 120 FERC ] 61,053 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. On April 21, 2008, the Commission issued a NOPR in this
proceeding. In the NOPR, the Commission noted that NERC submitted a
modified interpretation of BAL-005-0 on April 15, 2008. The Commission
stated that it did not plan to act on the initial interpretation and
would address ``interpretation (b)'' at a future time.

B. NERC's Proposed Interpretation

    4. Requirement R17 of Reliability Standard BAL-005-0 obligates each
balancing authority to ``at least annually check and calibrate its time
error and frequency devices against a common reference.'' This is one
aspect of ensuring the accurate calculation of area control error
(ACE). Requirement R17 states that a balancing authority must adhere to
minimum accuracies in terms of ranges for the following devices:
Digital frequency transducer, voltage transducer, remote terminal unit,
potential transformer, and current transformer.
    5. NERC received a request for interpretation regarding the type
and location of the equipment to which Requirement R17 applies. In
response, a NERC task force developed, and the NERC board of trustees
approved, interpretation (b), which provides that BAL-005-0,
Requirement R17

applies only to the time error and frequency devices that provide,
or in the case of back-up equipment may provide, input into the
reporting or compliance ACE equation or provide real-time time error
or frequency information to the system operator. Frequency inputs
from other sources that are for reference only are excluded. The
time error and error frequency measurement devices may not
necessarily be located in the system operations control room or
owned by the Balancing Authority; however the Balancing Authority
has the responsibility for the accuracy of the frequency and time
error devices. * * *
New or replacement equipment that provides the same functions noted
above requires the same calibrations. Some devices used for time
error and frequency measurement cannot be calibrated as such. In
this case, these devices should be cross-checked against other
properly calibrated equipment and replaced if the devices do not
meet the required level of accuracy.

II. Discussion

    6. The Commission proposes to approve NERC's interpretation (b) of
BAL-005-0, Requirement R17. The Commission agrees that, as stated in
interpretation (b), time error and frequency devices that serve as
input into the reporting or compliance of the ACE equation, whether
inside or outside the operations control room, must be annually checked
and calibrated. In addition, the Commission notes that tie-line
megawatt metering data is another important aspect of ensuring the
accurate calculation of area control error (ACE), and interpretation
(b) limits the specific accuracy requirements of Requirement R17 to
frequency and time error measurement devices. We seek comment on
whether interpretation (b): (1) Could decrease the accuracy of
frequency and time-error measurements by not requiring calibration of
tie-line megawatt metering devices; (2) what conditions would preclude
the requirement to calibrate these devices; and (3) whether the
accuracy of these devices is assured by other requirements within BAL-
005-0 in the absence of calibration.

III. Comment Procedures

    7. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on
the matters and issues proposed in this notice to be adopted, including
any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish
to discuss. Comments are due June 12, 2008, concurrent with the comment
due date for the NOPR issued on April 21, 2008. Comments must refer to
Docket No. RM08-7-000, and must include the commenter's name, the
organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in their
comments.
    8. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically
via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most standard word processing
formats. Documents created electronically using word processing
software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format
and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not
need to make a paper filing.

    9. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically
must send an original and 14 copies of their comments to: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    10. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files
and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the
Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are
not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.

IV. Document Availability

    11. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
Internet through FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's
Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.
    12. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is
available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on
eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or
downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket
number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket
number field.
    13. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web
site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202)
502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-mail the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 40

    Electric power, Electric utilities, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirement.

    By direction of the Commission.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-11694 Filed 5-23-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 157 (Tuesday, August 14, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48427-48429]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19254]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0038; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-209-AD;
Amendment 39-17153; AD 2012-16-06]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus Model A300 B4-600 series airplanes and Model A310-203, -204, -
221, and -222 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of a
capacitive density condensator (cadensicon) coil overheating during
testing. This AD requires an inspection to determine if a certain fuel
quantity indication computer (FQIC) is installed, replacement of
identified FQICs, and modification of the associated wiring. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct potential overheating of the
cadensicon coil, which could create an ignition source inside a fuel
tank, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in
a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective September 18, 2012.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of September 18,
2012.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-2125; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on February 7, 2012 (77
FR 6023). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    In view to address the scope of Special Federal Aviation
Regulation 88 (SFAR 88) (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001) and the
equivalent JAA Internal Policy INT/POL/25/12, a safety analysis of
Fuel Quantity Indication Computers (FQIC) fitted to Wide Body
aeroplanes has been performed.
    Detailed analysis has shown that on early standard FQIC, Type 1,
there is an insufficient gap on the printed circuit board between an
115V [volt] supply and a direct path to the Capacitive Density
Condensator (Cadensicon).
    During tests that were carried out applying 115V to the
Cadensicon coil, measured temperature levels were in excess of the
acceptable level of 200[deg]C. This potential

overheating of the Cadensicon coil could be a possible ignition
point within the fuel tank.
    This condition, if left uncorrected, could create an ignition
source in the tank vapour space, possibly resulting in a wing fuel
tank explosion and consequent loss of the aeroplane.
    For the reasons explained above, this [European Aviation Safety
Agency] AD requires the replacement of all Type 1 FQICs with Type 2
FQICs.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We have considered the comment received.

Request for Extension of Compliance Time

    FedEx requested that we revise the compliance time for the actions
required by paragraph (g) of the NPRM (77 FR 6023, February 7, 2012),
from 30 months to 36 months. FedEx explained that the lead time for the
Airbus kit part number 282039A01R01 is 60 days, as listed in Airbus
Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-28-2039, Revision 01, dated January 19,
2011. FedEx explained further that a 30-day lead-time was quoted from
Intertechnique for a Type 2 FQIS unit. FedEx expressed that while the
30 months aligns with the heavy maintenance schedule for Model A310
airplanes, it would take time to procure the new FQIS units and kits
required to comply with the NPRM. Therefore, the additional 6 months it
proposed for scheduling and material procurement will allow the work to
be performed during a heavy maintenance check for all FedEx airplanes.
    We disagree to revise the compliance time in the final rule. In
developing an appropriate compliance time, we considered the safety
implications, parts availability, and normal maintenance schedules for
timely accomplishment of the required actions in the final rule.
However, under the provisions of paragraph (i) of this AD, we will
consider requests for approval of an alternative method of compliance
(AMOC) if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the change
would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed the AD
in this regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and
determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the
AD as proposed--except for minor editorial changes. We have determined
that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (77 FR 6023, February 7, 2012) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 6023, February 7, 2012).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 53 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 6 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $200 per product.
Where the service information lists required parts costs that are
covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge
for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected
parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based
on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators
to be $37,630, or $710 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM (77 FR 6023, February 7,
2012), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for the Docket Operations office
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2012-16-06 Airbus: Amendment 39-17153. Docket No. FAA-2012-0038;
Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-209-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective September
18, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and
B4-622 airplanes, and Model A310-203, -204, -221, and -222
airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial
numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28: Fuel.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of a capacitive density
condensator (cadensicon) coil overheating during testing. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct potential overheating of the
cadensicon coil, which could create an ignition source inside a fuel
tank, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result
in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD
performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions
have already been done.

(g) Actions

    Within 30 months after the effective date of this AD, inspect to
determine whether any fuel quantity indication computer (FQIC) Type
1, having part number (P/N) SIC5054 or P/N SIC5051 (as applicable to
the airplane model), is installed, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin
A300-28-6024, Revision 02, dated January 19, 2011; or Airbus
Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-28-2039, Revision 01, dated January
19, 2011; as applicable. A review of airplane maintenance records is
acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the part number of the FQIC
can be conclusively determined from that review. If any FQIC Type 1
having P/N SIC5054 or P/N SIC5051 is installed, within 30 months
after the effective date of this AD, replace the FQIC Type 1 with a
FQIC Type 2 having P/N SIC5055, P/N SIC5076, P/N SIC5082, or P/N
SIC5083 (as applicable to Model A310 series airplanes) or with a
FQIC Type 2 having P/N SIC5077 (as applicable to Model A300 B4-600
series airplanes), and modify the associated wiring, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service
Bulletin A300-28-6024, Revision 02, dated January 19, 2011; or
Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-28-2039, Revision 01, dated
January 19, 2011; as applicable.

(h) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install any
FQIC Type 1 having P/N SIC5054 or P/N SIC5051, on any airplane.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to Attn: Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(j) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
Directive 2011-0186, dated September 23, 2011, and the service
information specified in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD,
for related information.
    (1) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-28-6024, Revision 02,
dated January 19, 2011.
    (2) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-28-2039, Revision 01,
dated January 19, 2011.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the following service
information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use the following service information to do the
actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-28-6024, Revision 02,
dated January 19, 2011.
    (ii) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-28-2039, Revision
01, dated January 19, 2011.
    (3) For Airbus service information identified in this AD,
contact Airbus SAS--EAW (Airworthiness Office), 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com.
    (4) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at an NARA facility, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 31, 2012.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-19254 Filed 8-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 177 (Thursday, September 12, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48052-48054]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19656]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0344; Airspace Docket No. 19-ASW-7]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of the Class D Airspace; New Iberia, LA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class D airspace at Acadiana Regional
Airport, New Iberia, LA. This action is the result of the
decommissioning of the ACADI Non-directional radio beacon, (NDB). This
action is for the safety and management of standard instrument approach
procedures for instrument flight rules (IFR), operations at this
airport.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, December 5, 2019. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1 Code of

Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA
Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11C at NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Shelby, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    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
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 supports the modification of the Class D airspace at Acadiana
Regional Airport, New Iberia, LA, to support instrument flight rules
(IFR) operations at the airport.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (84 FR 28440; June 19, 2019) for Docket No. FAA-2019-0344 to
Propose Amendment of the Class D Airspace, New Iberia, LA. Interested
parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by
submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments
were received.
    Class D airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000 of
FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August 3, 2018, and effective September 15,
2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2018, and effective September 15,
2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11C lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by modifying Class D airspace at Acadiana Regional Airport, New
Iberia, LA, to within a 4.2-mile radius (reduced from a 4.4-mile
radius); adding an extension within 1-mile each side of the 168[deg]
bearing from the airport extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 4.5-
miles south of the airport; removing the city associated with the
airport from the legal description to comply with FAA Order 7400.2M,
Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters; and making an editorial
change replacing the outdated term ``Airport/Facility Directory'' with
``Chart Supplement''.
    This action is the result of an airspace review caused by the
decommissioning of the ACADI NDB, which provided navigation information
for the instrument procedures at this airport.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
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 only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected
to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11C,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2018, and
effective September 15, 2018, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

ASW LA D New Iberia, LA [Amended]

Acadiana Regional Airport, LA
    (Lat. 30[deg]02'16'' N, long. 91[deg]53'02'' W)

That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,500 feet MSL within a 4.2-mile radius of Acadiana Regional
Airport, and within 1-mile each side of the 168[deg] bearing from
the airport extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 4.5 miles south of
the airport, excluding the Lafayette Regional Airport, LA, Class C
airspace area. This Class D airspace area is effective during the
specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to
Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously
published in the Chart Supplement.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on September 4, 2019.
Steve Szukala,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2019-19656 Filed 9-11-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 28 (Monday, February 11, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 3155]
[FR Doc No: 2019-01843]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0532; FRL-9988-06-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Beverage Can Surface Coating
(Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), NSPS for Beverage Can Surface
Coating (EPA ICR No. 0663.13, OMB Control No. 2060-0001), to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance
with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the
ICR, which is currently approved through March 31, 2019. Public
comments were previously requested, via the Federal Register, on June
29, 2017 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an
additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR
is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public.
An agency may neither conduct nor 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 March 13,
2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2012-0532, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 564-0050; 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: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Beverage
Can Surface Coating (40 CFR part 60, subpart WW) apply to each
operation of the following surface coating lines in the Beverage Can
Surface Coating industry: (1) Exterior base; (2) over-varnished; and
(3) inside spray. New facilities include those that commenced
construction, modification, or reconstruction after the date of
proposal. In general, all NSPS standards require initial notifications,
performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the
affected facilities. They are also required to maintain records of the
occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the
operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the
monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and
records are essential in determining compliance with 40 CFR part 60,
subpart WW.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Beverage can surface coating
facilities.
    Respondent's Obligation to Respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart WW).
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 48 (total).
    Frequency of Response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.
    Total Estimated Burden: 5,190 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total Estimated Cost: $669,000 (per year), which includes $101,000
in annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in the labor hours in
this ICR compared to the previous ICR. This is due to two
considerations: (1) The regulations have not changed over the past
three years and are not anticipated to change over the next three
years; and (2) the growth rate for the industry is very low, negative
or non-existent, so there is no significant change in the overall
burden.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2019-01843 Filed 2-8-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 11 (Friday, January 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2468-2469]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00599]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

U.S. Department of Transportation Notice of Practice Regarding
Proposed Airline Mergers and Acquisitions

AGENCY: Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of DOT authorities and practice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice explains the U.S. Department of Transportation's
(DOT) authorities and practice in the areas of proposed airline mergers
and acquisitions.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    This Notice describes the U.S. Department of Transportation's
practice and authorities with regard to airline mergers and
acquisitions, including those that involve a transfer of slots. The
Notice is not proposing any changes, new procedures, or new approaches.

II. Legal Authority To Review Slot Transactions Resulting From Proposed
Airline Mergers and Acquisitions

    The DOT has authority over slot transactions that stem from
proposed airline mergers and acquisitions.\1\ The authority arises from
several statutory provisions, as outlined below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ With respect to slot transactions, this Notice relates to
the DOT's practice for reviewing slot transactions that result from
proposed airline mergers or acquisitions. It does not apply to DOT's
review of standalone slot transactions. For more information
regarding DOT's authority and proposed procedures for reviewing
standalone slot transactions at the New York City area airports,
please see the notice of proposed rulemaking titled, Slot Management
and Transparency for LaGuardia Airport, John F. Kennedy
International Airport, and Newark Liberty International Airport, RIN
2120-AJ89, available in the docket for the rulemaking at
www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under 49 U.S.C. 41712, DOT is authorized to prohibit airline
conduct comparable to antitrust violations. Specifically, DOT may
prohibit conduct that it determines is an ``unfair method of
competition.'' \2\ In addition, like several other agencies with
respect to their regulated entities, DOT has independent authority
under the Clayton Act.\3\ This independent authority derives from 15
U.S.C. 21, under which DOT may prohibit airline acquisitions and
mergers that may reduce competition or tend to create a monopoly in the
airline industry.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 49 U.S.C. 41712, authorizing DOT to investigate and
prohibit any unfair or deceptive practice or an unfair method of
competition of an air carrier, foreign air carrier, or ticket agent.
    \3\ Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18, prohibits
mergers and stock acquisitions whose effect ``may be substantially
to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly'' in a
relevant market.
    \4\ See 15 U.S.C. 21, authorizing the Secretary to enforce
section 7 of the Clayton Act, and 15 U.S.C. 18, prohibiting U.S. and
foreign air carrier acquisitions that may substantially lessen
competition or tend to create a monopoly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The DOT/Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) also has authority to
administer airline slots under 49 U.S.C. 40103.\5\ This authority
permits the FAA to assign the use of airspace to ensure its efficient
use and modify or revoke a slot assignment when required in the public
interest. Section 40101, Title 49, directs DOT and the FAA, in carrying
out aviation programs, to consider certain enumerated factors, plus
additional factors that may be considered in the Secretary or FAA
Administrator's discretion, as being in the public interest,\6\
including furthering airline competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 49 U.S.C. 40103(b), authorizing the FAA to ``develop
plans and policy for the use of the navigable airspace and assign by
regulation or order the use of the airspace necessary to ensure . .
. the efficient use of airspace [and] to modify or revoke an
assignment when required in the public interest.''
    \6\ See 49 U.S.C. 40101(a), which directs the Secretary to
consider identified matters, ``among others,'' as being in the
public interest. See also 49 U.S.C. 40101(d), which directs the
Administrator to consider identified matters (including enhancing
safety) ``among others,'' as being in the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. The DOT Review of Airline Merger or Acquisition Transactions

    With respect to DOT's competition and public interest review
authorities, DOT's practice has been to use its expertise with respect
to the airline industry to provide the Department's views and otherwise
assist the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in DOJ's analysis of
airline mergers or acquisitions. The DOT will continue this practice
for airline mergers and acquisitions under DOJ review. DOT will consult
with DOJ, inform DOJ as early as possible regarding any concerns, and
defer to DOJ judgment where DOJ determines that a merger or acquisition
violates the antitrust laws and should be enjoined. The DOT will not
duplicate review or enforcement activities carried out by DOJ and will
not create undue expense or burdens upon parties to an airline merger
or acquisition.
    In the event that DOT has concerns that fall outside the DOJ
competition review process, DOT, in the discretion of the Secretary,
may seek independent resolution of these concerns, as has been its
practice. In doing so, DOT will work with the relevant parties,
including DOJ, as it did in the recent merger between US Airways and
American Airlines, to determine whether public interest remedies are
appropriate, and if so, to pursue such remedies. In that case, DOT
applied the Section 40101 public interest policy considerations to
maintain and enhance service to small communities with respect to the
merger between US Airways and American Airlines. The DOT entered into
an agreement under which the carriers committed to use certain slots at
Reagan Washington National Airport to

preserve nonstop service from DCA to small and medium-sized
communities.\7\ In the event that DOT exercises its public interest
authority, DOT will confer with DOJ to ensure that any public interest
remedies it seeks to impose are harmonized with any antitrust relief
sought or imposed by DOJ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Agreement regarding Merger Between US Airways Group,
Inc. and AMR Corporation, (Nov. 12, 2013), available at http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.dev/files/docs/FinalAgreement_DOT_US_AA_.pdf.
Under the Agreement, New American committed to schedule all DCA
commuter slots held or operated by New American entities to serve
medium, small and non-hub airports for five years.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 9, 2015.
Kathryn B. Thomson,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2015-00599 Filed 1-15-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P