[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77480-77483]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30088]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0814; FRL-9919-24]

Registration Review Proposed Interim Decisions; Notice of
Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's proposed
interim registration review decisions and opens a public comment.
Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide registrations
to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the statutory
standard for registration, that is, that the pesticide can perform its
intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human health
or the environment. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each
pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and other
knowledge,

including its effects on human health and the environment.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 23, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number for the specific pesticide of interest provided in the
table in Unit II.A., by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional
instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For pesticide specific information,
contact: The Chemical Review Manager for the pesticide of interest
identified in the table in Unit II.A.
    For general information on the registration review program,
contact: Richard Dumas, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P),
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703) 305-8015; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry;
pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale,
distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the Chemical Review Manager for the pesticide of interest
identified in the table in Unit II.A.

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

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

II. What action is the Agency taking?

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58, this notice announces the availability
of EPA's proposed interim registration review decisions for the
pesticides shown in the following Table, and opens a 60-day public
comment period on the proposed interim decisions.

                              Table--Registration Review Proposed Interim Decisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Chemical review manager,
  Registration review case name and              Pesticide docket ID No.               telephone number, email
                 No.                                                                           address
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetic acid and sodium diacetate      EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0016                           Carolyn Schroeder, (703)
 (Case 4001).                                                                         308-2961,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Fosetyl-Al (Case 0646)..............  EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0379                           Ricardo Jones, (703) 347-
                                                                                0493,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Picaridin (Case 7433)...............  EPA HQ-OPP-2014-0341                           Ricardo Jones, (703) 347-
                                                                                0493,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sodium fluoride (NaF) (Case 3132)...  EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0655                           SanYvette Williams, (703)
                                                                                305-7702,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                                                                .
Yellow mustard seed (Case 7618) and   EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0762                           Roy Johnson, (703) 347-
 Sulfonic acid salts (Case 7619).                                                     0492<EMAIL_ADDRESS>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Acetic acid and sodium diacetate. Acetic acid (Proposed Interim
Decision). The registration review docket for acetic acid and sodium
diacetate (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0016) opened in March 2008. Acetic acid and
sodium diacetate are two different active ingredients: Sodium diacetate
is a salt of acetic acid. Acetic acid is used as a preservative for
post harvest stored grains and hay intended for livestock feed.
Additionally, it is also applied as a non-selective herbicide for
control of broadleaf weeds and weed grasses. Sodium diacetate is a
fungicide and bactericide registered to control molds and bacteria. It
is applied to hay to prevent spoilage and to silage as an aid in
fermentation. EPA published the Final Work Plan in August 2008. The
Agency determined that previous human health assessments for acetic
acid and sodium diacetate were sufficient for registration review and
no human health risks of concern were identified. The Agency completed
a comprehensive ecological risk assessment for the nonselective
herbicide use of acetic acid, including an endangered species
assessment, and a qualitative ecological risk assessment for sodium
diacetate. The Agency concludes a ``no effect'' determination for
acetic acid used as a nonselective herbicide and all currently
registered uses of sodium diacetate for all non-target organisms; no
mitigation measures regarding ecological effects are included in the
proposed interim decision. The risk assessments and proposed interim
decision for acetic acid and sodium diacetate are currently available
in the docket for public comment. Acetic acid and sodium diacetate have
not been evaluated under the EDSP. Therefore, the Agency's final
registration review decision is dependent upon the results of the
evaluation of acetic acid and sodium diacetate as potential endocrine
disruptor risks. Pending the outcome of

this action, EPA is planning to issue an interim registration review
decision for acetic acid and sodium diacetate.
    2. Fosetyl-Al. Fosetyl-Al (Proposed Interim Decision). The
registration review docket for fosetyl-Al (EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0379) opened
in December 2007. Fosetyl-Al is systemic fungicide used to control
diseases caused by oomycetes such as downy mildews. It is registered
for use on agricultural crops as well as residential and commercial
areas. EPA published draft human health and ecological risk assessments
in March 2014. There are no human health risks of concern. The Agency
also completed an ecological risk assessment. The results of this
quantitative risk assessment indicates that the currently labeled rates
of fosestyl-Al pose a potential for adverse effects, i.e., risk, to
non-target terrestrial animals, including insects, birds, reptiles,
terrestrial-phase amphibians and mammals. In addition, applications may
impact sensitive species of dicotyledenous plants (dicots) in
terrestrial habitats. In order to address potential ecological risks,
the Agency is proposing changes to product labels which incorporate
certain risk mitigation measures meant to reduce these risks. These
measures include restricting aerial application of fosetyl-Al for
certain uses, reducing the total number of applications that can be
made annually for certain uses, and clarifying labels to better define
how fosetyl-Al may be applied. The Agency completed a screening-level
endangered species assessment and made a ``no effects'' determination
for the following taxa: Fish, aquatic-phase amphibians, aquatic
invertebrates, aquatic plants, and monocot plants. For all other
species the effects determinations are uncertain. Fosetyl-Al has not
been evaluated under the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP)
nor has it completed the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7
consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service).
Therefore, the Agency's final registration review decision is dependent
upon the result of the evaluation of potential endocrine disruptor risk
and consultation with the Service for endangered species. Pending the
outcome of these actions, EPA is planning to issue an interim
registration review decision for fosetyl-Al.
    3. Picaridin. (Combined Work Plan, Preliminary Risk Assessments,
and Proposed Interim Decision). The registration review docket for
Picaridin (EPA HQ-OPP-2014-0341) is opening for public comment on a
Combined Preliminary Work Plan, Final Work Plan, Preliminary Risk
Assessments, and Proposed Interim Decision for registration review. Due
to the lack of need for additional data to support this decision, the
Agency is also issuing Preliminary Ecological and Human Health Risk
Assessments for picaridin and opening them for public comment.
Picaridin is a broad-spectrum insect repellant registered for use
against biting flies, chiggers, fleas, mosquitos and ticks. Picaridin
is labelled for use on human skin, clothing, footwear, and on horses.
EPA has completed comprehensive draft human health and ecological risk
assessments, including a screening-level endangered species assessment,
for all picaridin uses. For human health, only residential exposure was
assessed, and the Agency has not identified any risk concerns
associated with the registered uses of picaridin. Due to its use on
human skin and clothing, exposure to terrestrial non-target organisms
and plants is expected to be inconsequential. Based on the lack of
potential exposure and nontoxic effects, the ecological risk assessment
has made a ``no effect'' determination for all federally listed species
and ``no habitat modification'' of any designated critical habitat for
listed species. Picaridin has not been evaluated under the EDSP.
Therefore, the agency's final registration review decision is dependent
upon the result of the evaluation of potential endocrine disruptor
risk. Pending the outcome of this action, the Agency is planning to
issue an interim registration review decision for picaridin.
    4. Sodium fluoride. (Combined Preliminary Work Plan and Proposed
Interim Decision). The registration review docket for sodium fluoride
(EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0655) is opening for public comment on a Combined
Preliminary Work Plan and Proposed Interim Decision. Sodium fluoride is
registered for use as a wood preservative to protect the groundline
portion of existing wooden utility poles. It is formulated as an
impregnated pole wrap material. This use is not expected to result in
direct or indirect dietary (food) or drinking water exposure.
Occupational and residential exposure is minimal by the dermal and
inhalation routes so no assessment is needed. Based on the lack of
potential exposure and nontoxic effects to fish, aquatic invertebrates
and birds, the ecological risk assessment has made a ``no effect''
determination for Federally listed species and designated critical
habitat. Sodium fluoride has not been evaluated under the EDSP.
Therefore, the agency's final registration review decision is dependent
upon the result of the evaluation of potential endocrine disruptor
risk. Pending the outcome of this action, EPA is planning to issue a
combined preliminary work plan and interim registration review decision
for sodium fluoride.
    5. Yellow mustard seed/Sulfonic acid salts (Combined Preliminary
Work Plan and Proposed Interim Decision). The registration review
docket for yellow mustard seed and sulfonic acid salts is opening for
public comment on a Combined Preliminary Work Plan and Proposed Interim
Decision. The registration review docket for Yellow Mustard Seed/
Sulfonic Acid Salts (YMS/SAS) is opening for public comment on a
combined Work Plan, Draft Risk Assessments, and a Proposed Interim
Registration Review Decision. This product is a rodenticide for the
control of the Richardson's ground squirrel and Wyoming ground
squirrel. YMS/SAS is applied by injection under pressure as a foam into
burrows inhabited by the pest species in rangeland, ornamental
plantings, orchards, golf courses, parks, nurseries, and non-crop
rights-of-way. No risks of concern were identified. YMS/SAS have not
been evaluated under the EDSP, nor has an endangered species assessment
been conducted. The Agency's final registration review decision is
dependent upon the results of both assessments. Pending the outcome of
those assessments, EPA is issuing an interim registration review
decision for YMS/SAS.
    The registration review docket for a pesticide includes earlier
documents related to the registration review of the case. For example,
the review opened with a Summary Document, containing a Preliminary
Work Plan, for public comment. A Final Work Plan was placed in the
docket following public comment on the initial docket. The documents in
the dockets describe EPA's rationales for conducting additional risk
assessments, as well as the Agency's subsequent risk findings and
consideration of possible risk mitigation measures. A proposed
registration review decision will be supported by the rationales
included in those documents. Following public comment on a proposed
decision, the Agency will issue an interim registration review
decision.
    The registration review program is being conducted under
congressionally mandated time frames, and EPA recognizes the need both
to make timely decisions and to involve the public. Section 3(g) of the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C.
136a(g)) required EPA to establish by regulation procedures for

reviewing pesticide registrations, originally with a goal of reviewing
each pesticide's registration every 15 years to ensure that a pesticide
continues to meet the FIFRA standard for registration. The Agency's
final rule to implement this program was issued in August 2006 and
became effective in October 2006, and appears at 40 CFR part 155,
subpart C. The Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of 2003 (PRIA)
was amended and extended in September 2007. FIFRA, as amended by PRIA
in 2007, requires EPA to complete registration review decisions by
October 1, 2022, for all pesticides registered as of October 1, 2007.
    The registration review final rule at 40 CFR 155.58(a) provides for
a minimum 60-day public comment period on all proposed interim
registration review decisions. This comment period is intended to
provide an opportunity for public input and a mechanism for initiating
any necessary amendments to the proposed interim decision. All comments
should be submitted using the methods in ADDRESSES, and must be
received by EPA on or before the closing date. These comments will
become part of the docket for the pesticides included in the table in
Unit II.A. Comments received after the close of the comment period will
be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.
    The Agency will carefully consider all comments received by the
closing date and will provide a ``Response to Comments Memorandum'' in
the docket as appropriate. The final registration review decision will
explain the effect that any comments had on the decision.
    Background on the registration review program is provided at:
http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation. Information regarding
earlier documents related to the registration review of these
pesticides can be found at: http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation/individual-pesticides-registration-review.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: December 17, 2014.
Richard P. Keigwin, Jr.,
Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2014-30088 Filed 12-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: January 15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 10)]
[Notices]
[Page 2583-2584]
[DOCID:fr15ja09-92]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No.: 503-048]

Idaho Power Company; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental
Impact Statement and Notice of Scoping Meetings and Soliciting Scoping
Comments

January 9, 2009.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: 503-048.
    c. Date filed: June 26, 2008.
    d. Applicant: Idaho Power Company.
    e. Name of Project: Swan Falls Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The Swan Falls Hydroelectric Project is located on the
Snake River at river mile (RM) 457.7 in Ada and Owyhee counties of
southwestern Idaho, about 35 miles southwest of Boise. The project
occupies 528.8 acres of lands of the United States within the Snake
River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Tom Saldin, Senior Vice President and
General Counsel, Idaho Power Company, P.O. Box 70, Boise, Idaho 83707,
(208) 388-2550.
    i. FERC Contact: James Puglisi, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426; telephone
(202) 502-6241 or by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing scoping comments: March 13, 2009.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all interveners filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    Scoping comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in
lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.
    k. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    l. The existing Swan Falls Project consists of: (1) A 1,218-foot-
long concrete gravity and rock-fill dam composed of an abutment
embankment, a spillway section, a center island, the old powerhouse
section, the intermediate dam, and the new powerhouse; (2) a 12-mile-
long 1,525-acre reservoir with a normal maximum water surface elevation
of 2,314 feet mean sea level (msl); (3) twelve equal-width, concrete
spillways with a capacity of 105,112 cubic feet per second (cfs) at
reservoir elevation 2,318 msl, divided into two sections (western and
eastern)--the western section, contiguous with the abutment embankment,
is a gated, concrete ogee section with eight radial gates, and the
eastern section, which is adjacent to the island, contains four radial
gates; (4) two concrete flow channels (instead of penstocks); (5) two
pit-bulb turbine generators with a nameplate rating of 25 megawatts;
(6) a powerhouse completed in 1994; (7) a 1,400-foot-long, 120-foot-
wide excavated tailrace channel; (8) a 33,600-kilovolt ampere main
power transformer; (9) a 1-mile-long, 138-kilovolt transmission line;
and (10) appurtenant equipment.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site 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 Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-
866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available for
inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filings/
esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    n. Scoping Process
    The Commission intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) on the project in accordance with the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). The EIS will consider both site-specific and
cumulative environmental impacts and reasonable alternatives to the
proposed action. Our intent is for the planned scoping meetings to
satisfy the NEPA scoping requirements.

Scoping Meetings

    Commission staff will conduct two scoping meetings. All interested
individuals, organizations, and agencies are invited to attend one or
both of the meetings, and to assist the staff in identifying the scope
of the environmental issues that should be analyzed in the EIS. The
times and locations of these meetings are as follows:

Daytime Scoping Meeting

    When: February 11, 2009, 9-11 a.m. (MST).
    Where: Doubletree Hotel--Boise Riverside, 2900 Chinden Blvd.,
Boise, Idaho.

Evening Scoping Meeting

    When: February 10, 2009, 7-9 p.m. (MST).
    Where: Doubletree Hotel--Boise Riverside, 2900 Chinden Blvd.,
Boise, Idaho.
    Scoping Document 1 (SD1), which outlines the subject areas to be
addressed in the environmental document, was distributed to the parties
on the Commission's mailing list. Copies of SD1 will be available at
the scoping meetings, or may be viewed on the Web at http://
www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link (see item m above). Based on
all oral and written comments, a Scoping Document 2 (SD2) will be
issued. SD2 will include a list of issues identified through the
scoping process.

Site Visit

    The Applicant and FERC staff will conduct a project site visit
beginning at 9 a.m. on February 10, 2008. Participants will meet at the
overlook above Swan Falls dam at 9 a.m. To reach the meeting site, take
I-84 from Boise, turn south at Exit 44 onto S. Meridian Road (ID-69)
toward Kuna, follow ID-69 as it becomes E. Avalon Road in Kuna, turn
south onto S. Swan

Falls Road, and follow Swan Falls Road about 19 miles to the overlook
above the dam. Allow 60 to 75 minutes for the drive from Boise. All
participants are responsible for their own transportation. The site
visit will take 3 to 4 hours.

Objectives

    At the scoping meetings, the staff will: (1) Summarize the
environmental issues tentatively identified for analysis in the EIS;
(2) solicit from the meeting participants all available information,
especially quantifiable data, on the resources at issue; (3) encourage
statements from experts and the public on issues that should be
analyzed in the EIS, including viewpoints in opposition to, or in
support of, the staff's preliminary views; (4) determine the resource
issues to be addressed in the EIS; and (5) identify those issues that
require a detailed analysis, as well as those issues that do not
require a detailed analysis.

Meeting Procedures

    The meetings are recorded by a stenographer and become part of the
formal record of the Commission proceeding on the project.
    Individuals, organizations, and agencies with environmental
expertise and concerns are encouraged to attend the meetings and to
assist the staff in defining and clarifying the issues to be addressed
in the EIS.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-752 Filed 1-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 249 (Friday, December 27, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 78748-78751]
[FR Doc No: 2013-31108]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0540; FRL-9902-90]

2,5-Furandione, polymer With ethenylbenzene, Reaction Products
With polyethylene-polypropylene glycol 2-aminopropyl Me ether;
Tolerance Exemption

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of 2,5-furandione, polymer with
ethenylbenzene, reaction products with polyethylene-polypropylene
glycol 2-aminopropyl Me ether; minimum number average molecular weight
(in amu), 14,000 (CASRN 162568-32-3); when used as an inert ingredient
in a pesticide chemical formulation. Huntsman Corp. submitted a
petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
requesting an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This
regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level
for residues of 2,5-furandione, polymer with ethenylbenzene, reaction
products with polyethylene-polypropylene glycol 2-aminopropyl Me ether
on food or feed commodities.

DATES: This regulation is effective December 27, 2013. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before February 25, 2014,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0540, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-
5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lois Rossi, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).

     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. Can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0540 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
February 25, 2014. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any CBI) for inclusion in the public docket.
Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be
disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy
of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0540, by one of the following methods.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of September 12, 2013 (78 FR 56187) (FRL-
9399-7), EPA issued a notice pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C.
346a, announcing the receipt of a pesticide petition (IN-10607) filed
by Huntsman Corp., 8600 Gosling Rd., The Woodlands, TX 77381. The
petition requested that 40 CFR 180.960 be amended by establishing an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of 2,5-
furandione, polymer with ethenylbenzene, reaction products with
polyethylene-polypropylene glycol 2-aminopropyl Me ether. That notice
included a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner and
solicited comments on the petitioner's request. The Agency did not
receive any comments.
    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and use in residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the
pesticide chemical residue in establishing an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance and to ``ensure that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . .'' and
specifies factors EPA is to consider in establishing an exemption.

III. Risk Assessment and Statutory Findings

    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be shown that the risks from aggregate
exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable
circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order
to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert
ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in
conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to
determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate
exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of
a tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability
and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also
considered available information concerning the variability of the
sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including
infants and children. In the case of certain chemical substances that
are defined as polymers, the Agency has established a set of criteria
to identify categories of polymers expected to present minimal or no
risk. The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the
exclusion criteria for identifying these low-risk polymers are
described in 40 CFR 723.250(d). 2,5-furandione, polymer with
ethenylbenzene, reaction products with polyethylene-polypropylene
glycol 2-aminopropyl Me ether conforms to the definition of a polymer
given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets the following criteria that are
used to identify low-risk polymers.
    1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably
anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic
environment.
    2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition
the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.
    3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its
composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed
in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).
    4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably
anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize.
    5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or
reactants that are already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance
Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.
    6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number
average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons.
    7. The polymer does not contain certain perfluoroalkyl moieties

consisting of a CF3- or longer chain length as specified in 40 CFR
723.250(d)(6).
    Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following
exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e).
    8. The polymer's number average MW is greater than or equal to
10,000 daltons. The polymer contains less than 2% oligomeric material
below MW 500 and less than 5% oligomeric material below MW 1,000.
    Thus, 2,5-furandione, polymer with ethenylbenzene, reaction
products with polyethylene-polypropylene glycol 2-aminopropyl Me ether
meets the criteria for a polymer to be considered low risk under 40 CFR
723.250. Based on its conformance to the criteria in this unit, no
mammalian toxicity is anticipated from dietary, inhalation, or dermal
exposure to 2,5-furandione, polymer with ethenylbenzene, reaction
products with polyethylene-polypropylene glycol 2-aminopropyl Me ether.

IV. Aggregate Exposures

    For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this
exemption, EPA considered that 2,5-furandione, polymer with
ethenylbenzene, reaction products with polyethylene-polypropylene
glycol 2-aminopropyl Me ether could be present in all raw and processed
agricultural commodities and drinking water, and that non-occupational
non-dietary exposure was possible. The number average MW of 2,5-
furandione, polymer with ethenylbenzene, reaction products with
polyethylene-polypropylene glycol 2-aminopropyl Me ether is 14,000
daltons. Generally, a polymer of this size would be poorly absorbed
through the intact gastrointestinal tract or through intact human skin.
Since 2,5-furandione, polymer with ethenylbenzene, reaction products
with polyethylene-polypropylene glycol 2-aminopropyl Me ether conform
to the criteria that identify a low-risk polymer, there are no concerns
for risks associated with any potential exposure scenarios that are
reasonably foreseeable. The Agency has determined that a tolerance is
not necessary to protect the public health.

V. Cumulative Effects From Substances With a Common Mechanism of
Toxicity

    Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering
whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency
consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative effects of
a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances that have a
common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found 2,5-furandione, polymer with ethenylbenzene,
reaction products with polyethylene-polypropylene glycol 2-aminopropyl
Me ether to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other
substances, and 2,5-furandione, polymer with ethenylbenzene, reaction
products with polyethylene-polypropylene glycol 2-aminopropyl Me ether
does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other
substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA
has assumed that 2,5-furandione, polymer with ethenylbenzene, reaction
products with polyethylene-polypropylene glycol 2-aminopropyl Me ether
does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For
information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a
common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of
such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

VI. Additional Safety Factor for the Protection of Infants and Children

    Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an
additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the
case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the data base unless EPA concludes
that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and
children. Due to the expected low toxicity of 2,5-furandione, polymer
with ethenylbenzene, reaction products with polyethylene-polypropylene
glycol 2-aminopropyl Me ether, EPA has not used a safety factor
analysis to assess the risk. For the same reasons the additional
tenfold safety factor is unnecessary.

VII. Determination of Safety

    Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low-
risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no
harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from
aggregate exposure to residues of 2,5-furandione, polymer with
ethenylbenzene, reaction products with polyethylene-polypropylene
glycol 2-aminopropyl Me ether.

VIII. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

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

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established a MRL for 2,5-furandione, polymer
with ethenylbenzene, reaction products with polyethylene-polypropylene
glycol 2-aminopropyl Me ether.

IX. Conclusion

    Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of 2,5-furandione,
polymer with ethenylbenzene, reaction products with polyethylene-
polypropylene glycol 2-aminopropyl Me ether from the requirement of a
tolerance will be safe.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d)
in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these rules from review under
Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been exempted
from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is not subject
to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it involve any
technical standards that would require Agency consideration of
voluntary consensus standards pursuant

to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or otherwise have any unique
impacts on local governments. Thus, the Agency has determined that
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition, this final rule
does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as
described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    Although this action does not require any special considerations
under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), EPA seeks to achieve
environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of
any group, including minority and/or low-income populations, in the
development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies. As such, to the extent that information is
publicly available or was submitted in comments to EPA, the Agency
considered whether groups or segments of the population, as a result of
their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical
or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or
environmental effects from exposure to the pesticide discussed in this
document, compared to the general population.

XI. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: December 17, 2013.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.960, in the table, alphabetically add the following
polymer before the entry for ``Hexadecyl acrylate-acrylic acid
copolymer * * *'' to read as follows:

Sec.  [emsp14]180.960  Polymers; exemptions from the requirement of a
tolerance.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Polymer                              CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
2,5-Furandione, polymer with ethenylbenzene, reaction        162568-32-3
 products with polyethylene-polypropylene glycol 2-
 aminopropyl Me ether; minimum number average molecular
 weight (in amu), 14,000................................

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

[FR Doc. 2013-31108 Filed 12-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 105 (Friday, May 31, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 32696]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12991]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

China Properties Developments, Inc.; Order of Suspension of
Trading

May 29, 2013.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
China Properties Developments, Inc. because it has not filed any
periodic reports since the period ended September 30, 2010.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed company. Therefore, it is ordered,
pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that
trading in the securities of the above-listed company is suspended for
the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on May 29, 2013, through 11:59 p.m. EDT
on June 11, 2013.

    By the Commission.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-12991 Filed 5-29-13; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Definitions A brief description of the terms used in the PBT Profiler is provided below Persistence Persistence is the ability of a chemical substance to remain in an environment in an unchanged form. The longer a chemical persists, the higher is the potential for human or environmental exposure to it. The individual environmental media for which a chemical's persistence is usually measured or estimated are air, water, soil, and sediment.

It is important to distinguish between persistence in a single medium and overall environmental persistence. Persistence in an individual medium is controlled by transport of the substance to other media, as well as transformation to other molecular species. Persistence in the environment as a whole is a distinct concept. It is based on the observations that the environment behaves as a set of interconnected media, and that a chemical substance released to the environment will become distributed in these media in accordance with its intrinsic (physical/ chemical) properties and reactivity. Multimedia mass balance models offer the most convenient means to estimate overall environmental persistence from information on sources and loadings, chemical properties and transformation processes, and intermedia partitioning.

When reviewing chemicals for pollution prevention opportunities, the medium specific persistence and amount of the chemical expected to be found in each medium need to be considered relative to its potential releases to the environment from manufacture, use, transport and disposal. The longer a chemical persists in the environment, the higher its potential for harm to health and the environment.

The PBT Profiler expresses persistence in individual media half lives in air, water, soil, and sediment measured in days. These half lives are for reactivity based persistence only. The EPA has established a series of proposed thresholds for persistence based on the efforts of scientists, regulators, and other interested parties worldwide in helping to identify and regulate chemicals that may present the greatest health and environmental risks. The PBT Profiler compares the individual medium half lives it estimates for air, water, soil, and sediment to the cutoffs proposed by the EPA. If the estimated half lives are greater than those proposed by the EPA, the PBT Profiler highlights these values automatically by changing the font color for the estimated value from green to orange or red, depending on which cutoff is exceeded. In the black and white version, underlines and italics are used to indicate if the criteria are exceeded. The PBT Profiler currently uses the following cutoff values for persistence in individual media: Half Life (days)

Environmental Compartment Not Persistent Persistent Water <2 months >= 2 months >6 months Soil <2 months >= 2 months >6 months Air <= 2 days > 2 days Sediment <2 months >= 2 months >6 months In the black and white version, these appear as follows:

Half Life (days)

Environmental Compartment Not Persistent Persistent Water <2 months >= 2 months >6 months Soil <2 months >= 2 months >6 months Air <= 2 days > 2 days Sediment <2 months >= 2 months >6 months More information on the persistence cutoffs can be found on the PBT Profiler's PBT Criteria Page.

To determine the persistence portion of the PBT estimate (the persistence ranking), the PBT Profiler considers water, soil, and sediment but not air. This is because bioaccumulation is commonly considered only for these environmental compartments. To determine the Persistence ranking, the PBT Profiler first determines the media (environmental compartment) a chemical is most likely to be found in. It then determines if the chemical's persistence in this media exceeds the criteria discussed above. If it does, then the persistence portion of the PBT estimate is shaded orange or red. A chemical's persistence in air is also important in determining its potential to travel long distances from its original point of release. The is discussed in more detail under the long range transport section of this page. Information on the techniques that the PBT profiler uses to estimate a chemical's persistence in the environment is available in the PBT profiler methodology section. Definitions of chemical persistence in air, water, soil, and sediment are briefly described on this page. A detailed discussion on the persistence of a chemical in the environment is contained in EPA's final TRI rule on PBT chemicals.

In addition to reactivity based persistence in the individual media, the PBT profiler estimates an overall environmental persistence for a standardized set of environmental conditions in which net advection and sediment burial have been removed, using a level III mult imedia fate model. The purpose of this is to provide to the user a measure of overall environmental persistence based on reactivity only. This may be useful in making pollution prevention decisions since ultimately, on a global scale, there is no advective removal. If advective loss is included the residence time is reduced and can give a misleading impression of a short persistence. Advective losses merely relocate the chemical; they do not destroy it.

Bioaccumulation Bioaccumulation is a general term that is used to describe the process by which organisms may accumulate chemical substances in their bodies. Bioaccumulation generally refers to uptake of a chemical through all environmental sources including the food chain. A similar term, bioconcentration, refers to the potential for a chemical in water to concentrate in fish and aquatic organisms. In general, chemicals that have the potential to bioconcentrate also have the potential to bioaccumulate.

Bioconcentration in fish can be readily measured in the laboratory and is frequently used to predict the importance of bioaccumulation, which is much more complicated to determine. The potentialforbioconcentration in fish isexpressed asitsbioconcentration factor, or BCF. There are many reliable techniques for measuring or estimating a chemical's BCF. The PBT profiler estimates a BCF based on a chemical's physical and chemical properties. This technique is described more fully in the methodology section. A detailed discussion of bioaccumulation, bioconcentration, and BCFs can be found in EPA's final TRI rule on PBT chemicals.

The EPA has established a series of proposed thresholds for bioaccumulative chemicals to help identify and regulate chemicals that may present the greatest health and environmental risks. The PBT Profiler compares the bioconcentration factors (BCFs) it estimates to the cutoffs proposed by the EPA. The BCFWIN model used to estimate BCF does not explicitly address a variety of factors that may influence bioaccumulation under field conditions, such as possible metabolism of the chemical in exposed organisms, which could lead to actual bioaccumulation being lower than predicted. The user therefore needs to exercise due caution when interpreting BCFWIN results. If the estimated BCF is greater than those proposed by the EPA, the PBT Profiler highlights the values automatically by changing the font color for the estimated value from green to orange or red, depending on which cutoff is exceeded. The output of the PBT profiler uses these colors so that the user can quickly identify which chemicals have the highest potential to bioaccumulate in fish and aquatic organisms. The PBT Profiler currently uses the following cutoff values for bioaccumulation:

Bioconcentration Factor Not Bioaccumulative Bioaccumulative < 1, 000 >= 1, 000 >= 5, 000 In the black and white version, the BCF criteria appear as:

Bioconcentration Factor Not Bioaccumulative Bioaccumulative < 1, 000 >= 1, 000 >= 5, 000 More information on the bioaccumulation cutoffs can be found on the PBT Profiler's PBT Criteria Page.

Toxicity Toxicity is a relative property of a chemical that refers to its potential to have a harmful effect on a living organism. It is a function of the concentration of the chemical and the duration of exposure. Because persistent and bioaccumulative chemicals are long lasting substances that can build up in the food chain to high levels, they have a higher potential to express toxicity and be harmful to humans and the ecosystem.

The PBT profiler uses a chronic (long term) toxicity value called a ChV to estimate a chemical's relative toxicity. The PBT Profiler currently uses the following cutoff values for toxicit y:

Fish ChV (mg/ l)

Not Toxic Toxic > 10 mg/ l or no effects at saturation < 10 mg/ l <0. 1mg/ l In the black and white version, the toxicity criteria are:

Fish ChV (mg/ l)

Not Toxic Toxic > 10 mg/ l or no effects at saturation < 10 mg/ l <0. 1mg/ l For more information on how the PBT Profiler estimates toxicity, see the PBT Profiler methodology section. More information on the toxicity cutoffs can be found on the PBT Profiler's PBT Criteria Page.

Media These are the four environmental compartments a chemical may be found in; air, water, soil, and sediment. Air is also commonly referred to as the atmosphere or atmospheric compartment. The atmospheric compartmentincludesthe area closesttothe Earth's surface (troposphere) and the stratosphere. Water refers to surface water, and includes oceans, rivers, lakes, and ponds. As defined, this medium does not include aquifers found below the Earth's surface (groundwater). The PBT Profiler does not explicitly consider groundwater.

Soil refers to the topmost layer (the first few inches) of the Earth's surface that is not covered by water. Soil includes the horizons near the surface that differ from the underlying rock material. Sediment is the particulate matter found under surface water. For the purposes of the estimation methods used by the PBT Profiler, soil is considered aerobic (oxygenated) and sediment is consider anaerobic (free of oxygen).

PBT strategies typically consider the persistence of a chemical in water, soil, and sediment but not air. This strategy is also used by the PBT Profiler. Nevertheless, the persistence of a chemical in air is important in identifying P2 opportunities because once in the atmosphere, it may travel a long distance from its original point of release. Therefore, the potential for harm to health or the environment may occur far away from the area where it was originally released. To help determine what chemicals have the potential to travel long distances from their original point of release, the PBT Profiler provides an indication of a chemical's long range transport by providing its estimated Characteristic Travel Distance (CTD). The CTD is discussed in more detail in the longrange transport definition.

Half Life Half life is the length of time it takes for the concentration of a substance to be reduced by one half relative to its starting level, assuming first order decay kinetics. Generally, it is useful to consider "complete removal" as taking approximately six half lives. The PBT profiler estimates the half life of a chemical in each environmental medium (air, water, soil, and sediment). These half lives are for reactivity and do not take into consideration partitioning into or out of the medium, or physical transport (i. e., advection). See the discussion on the PBT Profiler methodology for additional details on how the half life is estimated.

Percentage in Each Medium Once a chemical is released to the environment, it may move from one environmental compartment to another. The expected distribution of a chemical in air, water, soil, and sediment is expressed as the estimated percentage in each medium relative to the total amount in the environment. The PBT profiler determines the amount in each medium using a fugacity model that is based on a chemical's physical/ chemical properties and reactivity. The method the fugacity model uses to estimate the percentage in each medium is discussed in detail in the PBT Profiler methodology section.

Bioconcentration Factor The bioconcentration factor (BCF) is a measure of the ability a water borne chemical substance to concentrate in fatty tissue of fish and aquatic organisms relative to its surroundings. EPA defines bioconcentration as the net accumulation of a substance by an aquatic organism as a result of uptake directly from the ambient water through gill membranes or other external body surfaces (60 FR 15366). In general, chemicals that have the potential to bioconcentrate also have the potential to bioaccumulate. Because BCF values are much easier to measure (and estimate), the BCF is frequently used to determine the potential for a chemical to bioaccumulate.

The PBT profiler estimates a bioconcentration factor from a chemical's physical and chemical properties. More information on how a BCF is estimated can be found in the PBT Profiler methodology section.

Fish ChV Fish chronic toxicity value. This is the same as a chronic no effect concentration (NEC) and the geometric mean of the maximum allowable toxicant concentration (MATC). The MATC is the range of concentrations between the lowest observed effect concentration (LOEC) and the no observed effect concentration (NOEC).

No Effects at Saturation "No effects at saturation" is the phrase used to describe the situation which occurs when that the estimated Fish ChV (in mg/ L) is greater than a chemicals' water solubility (also in mg/ L). This indicates that a saturated aqueous solution of the chemical (one where the maximum water solubility has been reached) does not have a concentration high enough to allow potential toxic effects to be expressed.

Long Range Transport/ Characteristic Travel Distance Long Range Transport (LRT) potential refers to the ability of a chemical substance to be transported long distances in the atmosphere, potentially resulting in widespread distribution and deposition in regions far from where the chemical was produced or used. LRT potential is linked to overall environmental persistence, but no simple relationship between the two exists because the medium or media of transport (usually air; sometimes water) may not be the media in which persistence is longest. The method used to estimate LRT potential is discussed in the PBT Profiler methodology section. That method calculates the chemical's Characteristic Travel Distance (CTD) as the expression of LRT potential. CTD does not imply the existence of an environmental threat, only the potential for transport and resultant exposures at remote locations, and thus a need for further investigat ion.

The PBT Profiler currently uses the following cutoff values for CTD in air:

High Moderate Low CTD > 2, 000 Km >= 700 and <= 2, 000 Km < 700 Km In the black and white version, those values that exceed the high cutoff are underlined (e. g., 2, 100) and those that exceed the medium cutoff are italicized (e. g., 1, 100). These criteria have been published [Beyer A., Mackay, D., Matthies, M., Wania, F. and Webster, WAssessing Long range Transport Potential of Persistent Organic Pollutants. Environmental Science and Technology. 34: 699 703 (2000)], and are described in more detail in the methodology section of the PBT Profiler.

Developed by the Environmental Science Center under contract to the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics , U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Computer Resources Donated by Syracuse Research Corporation Ver 0. 911 BetaR Restricted Access Last Updated April 18, 2001


[Federal Register: January 31, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 20)]
[Notices]
[Page 4501]
[DOCID:fr31ja07-46]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application for Non-Project Use of Project Lands and
Waters and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

January 24, 2007.
    Take notice that the following application has been filed with the
Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Non-Project Use of Project Lands and Waters.
    b. Project No.: 2692-041.
    c. Date Filed: November 29, 2006.
    d. Applicant: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Nantahala Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The proposed development is located on Lake Nantahala
in Macon County, North Carolina. This project does not occupy any
Federal or tribal lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r)
and 799 and 801.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Joe Hall, Lake Services, Duke Energy
Carolinas, LLC, P.O. Box 1006, Charlotte, NC 28201,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Shana High at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing comments and or motions: February 26, 2007.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Ms.
Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please include the project
number (P-2692-041) on any comments or motions filed. Comments,
protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the
internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the
instructions on the Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing'' link.
The Commission strongly encourages e-filings.
    k. Description of Request: Duke Power is seeking Commission
approval to lease 0.56 acre of land within the project boundary for a
commercial/non-residential marina which will consist of one cluster
dock with 22 docking locations, including two slips designated for
fueling, for use by the general public.
    l. Location of the Application: This filing is available for review
at the Commission or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site 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 Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,

contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210,
385.211, 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS'', ``PROTEST'', OR ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as
applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to
which the filing refers. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be
served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the
particular application.
    p. Agency Comments: Federal, State, and local agencies are invited
to file comments in the described applications. A copy of the
applications may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant.
If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for
filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of
an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's
representatives.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-1482 Filed 1-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 167)]
[Notices]
[Page 53015-53017]
[DOCID:fr30au10-142]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0242]

Public Listening Session

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

ACTION: Announcement of public listening session; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces it will hold a public listening session to
solicit input on key challenges facing the motor carrier industry,
issues facing stakeholders, and concerns that should be considered by
the Agency in developing its next 5-year Strategic Plan. FMCSA invites
interested persons to participate in this important opportunity to help
build FMCSA's next strategic plan. This notice also invites written
comments, suggestions, and recommendations from all individuals and
organizations on FMCSA's mission, vision, and strategic objectives
(goals) for the plan.

DATES: The public meeting will be held September 8, 2010, in three
consecutive listening sessions:
    Safety Partners, 8 a.m. to 10 a.m.
    Industry Partners, 10 a.m. to 12 p.m.
    Enforcement Partners, 12 p.m. to 2 p.m.
    Submit comments for discussion at the listening session by
September 1, 2010.
    Additional written comments may be submitted by September 30, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Holiday Inn Washington-Capitol, 550 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20024.
    You may submit comments (identified by DOT Docket ID Number FMCSA-
2010-0242) by any of the following methods. Do not submit the same
comments by more than one method. However, to allow effective public
participation before the comment period deadline, the Agency encourages
use of the Web site listed below. This provides for the most efficient
and timely receipt and processing of your comments.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Ground floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., E.T., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
docket number. It is suggested that comment submissions be limited to
ten (10) pages with unlimited attachments. Note that all comments
received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided. Refer to the Privacy Act
heading of this notice for further information.
    Public Participation: The regulations.gov system is generally
available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. You can find electronic
submission and retrieval help and guidelines under the ``Help'' section
of the Web site. For notification that FMCSA received the comments,
please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard, or print
the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting comments online.
Copies or abstracts of all documents referenced in this notice are in
the docket. For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above will be considered and available for
examination in the docket at the above address. Comments received after
the comment closing date will be filed in the docket and will be
considered to the extent practicable. In addition to late comments,
FMCSA will continue to file relevant information in the docket as it
becomes available after the comment period closing date, and interested
persons should continue to examine the docket for new material.
    Services for Individuals with Disabilities: For assistance with
services for individuals with disabilities or to request special
assistance, please send your request to the address listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice, or e-mail your
request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by Wednesday, September 1, 2010.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received in any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70, pp. 19477-78) or you may visit
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Tretha Chromey, Office of Policy
and Program Development, Strategic Planning and Program Evaluation
Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Office hours are
9 a.m. to 5 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The primary mission of the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is to reduce crashes, injuries,
and fatalities involving large trucks and buses. Established as a
separate administration within the U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT) on January 1, 2000, FMCSA is headquartered in Washington, DC. The
Agency employs more than 1,000 people in all 50 States and the District
of Columbia, who are dedicated to improving the safety of commercial
motor vehicles (CMVs) and saving lives.
    In carrying out its safety mandate to reduce crashes, injuries, and
fatalities involving large trucks and buses, FMCSA engages in a variety
of regulatory, enforcement, outreach, educational, and research
activities. FMCSA's Administrator has outlined three core principles
for the Agency:
     Raise the safety bar to enter the motor carrier industry;
     Maintain high safety standards to remain in the industry;
and
     Remove high-risk carriers, drivers, and vehicles from
operations.
    Following are some of the key issues that the Agency hopes public
comments will address. In addition to general comments, we seek any
documents, studies, or references relevant to the issues. The public
may respond to some or all of the questions below. FMCSA will consider
all comments received but may not necessarily incorporate every comment
into the strategic plan.
    1. How should we strengthen FMCSA's role/mission of improving the
safety of commercial motor vehicles (CMV) and saving lives as it
relates to some of FMCSA's core program: Commercial motor vehicle
compliance and enforcement, commercial driver licensing, household
goods protection, safe and secure transportation of hazardous
materials?
    2. How can FMCSA have a greater impact in the reduction of injury
and loss of life on the nation's highways?
    3. How can FMCSA improve the way it does business, provides
customer service, and interacts with all road user groups? What are
some of the challenges you have in interacting with FMCSA that prevent
you from conducting your business effectively? What actions should
FMCSA take to improve interactions between CMV drivers and drivers of
private vehicles? Please identify possible improvements or ideas for
doing better.
    4. How might FMCSA improve or strengthen its partnership with
stakeholders representing State enforcement agencies, safety advocacy
groups, the motor carrier industry, and the general public to achieve
its safety mission?
    5. How should FMCSA balance driver-focused, vehicle-focused, and
motor carrier-focused compliance, interventions, and enforcement to
achieve its safety mission?
    6. How will advanced vehicle technologies (such as crash avoidance,
electronic on-board recorders [EOBRs], and global positioning systems
[GPS]) impact the future of driver behavior, vehicle safety, and motor
carrier safety?

    7. How will changes in the following areas impact the industry,
your organization, and/or FMCSA's ability to achieve its mission in the
future?
     Demographics
     Economics
     New policies in environment, energy, and other areas
    8. What technological changes could positively impact highway
safety?
    9. How will technology affect driver behavior? What issues related
to vehicle/driver interaction could affect safety performance?

    Issued on: August 24, 2010.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2010-21509 Filed 8-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 154 (Thursday, August 9, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 39361]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17075]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0693]

Safety Zones; Annual Events Requiring Safety Zones in the Captain
of the Port Lake Michigan Zone--Milwaukee Open Water Swim

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone on the Milwaukee
River, between the I-794 overpass to where the Milwaukee River and
Kinnickinnic River meet in Milwaukee, WI for the Milwaukee Open Water
Swim on August 11, 2018 to provide for the safety of life on navigable
waterways during the event. During the enforcement periods, the
operator of any vessel in the regulated area must comply with
directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying
a Coast Guard ensign. During the enforcement period, vessels and
persons are prohibited from transiting through, mooring, or anchoring
within this safety zone without approval from the Captain of the Port
Lake Michigan or his or her designated representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.929(f)(18) will be enforced from 6
a.m. through 10 a.m. on August 11, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notice of enforcement, call or email marine event coordinator MSTC
Kaleena Carpino, Prevention Department, Coast Guard Sector Lake
Michigan, Milwaukee, WI; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the Safety
Zone; Milwaukee Open Water Swim listed as (f)(18) in Table 165.929 of
33 CFR 165.929 on August 11, 2018 from 6 a.m. through 10 a.m. This
action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable
waterways of the Milwaukee River in Milwaukee, WI. This safety zone
will encompass all waters of the Milwaukee River from the I-794
overpass to where the Milwaukee River and Kinnickinnic River meet (NAD
83).
    Pursuant to 33 CFR 165.929, entry into, transiting, or anchoring
within the safety zone during an enforcement period is prohibited
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or his or
her designated on-scene representative. Those seeking permission to
enter the safety zone may request permission from the Captain of Port
Lake Michigan via Channel 16, VHF-FM. Vessels and persons granted
permission to enter the safety zone shall obey the directions of the
Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his or her designated
representative. While within a safety zone, all vessels shall operate
at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course.
    This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR
165.929, Safety Zones; Annual events requiring safety zones in the
Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone, and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In
addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will
provide the maritime community with advance notification of this
enforcement period via Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Local Notice to
Mariners. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his or her
designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16
or at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 24, 2018.
Thomas J. Stuhlreyer,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2018-17075 Filed 8-8-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 238 (Monday, December 12, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 89401-89402]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29631]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2015-0581; Airspace Docket No. 15-ASO-4]

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Louisville, GA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E Airspace at
Louisville, GA, to accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global
Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures
(SIAPs) serving Louisville Municipal Airport. Controlled airspace is
necessary for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules
(IFR) operations at the heliport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 26, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Bldg. Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; Telephone: 1-
800-647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the Docket No. FAA-
2015-0581; Airspace Docket No. 15-ASO-4, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public
docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final
disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed on line 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:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of
FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; 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 proposed 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 would establish Class E Airspace at Louisville
Municipal Airport, Louisville, GA.

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this proposed rule by
submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire.
Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and
suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned
regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited
on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and
energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted
in triplicate to the address listed above. You may also submit comments
through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on
this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket
No. FAA-2015-0581; Airspace Docket No. 15-ASO-4.'' The postcard will be
date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
Holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays at the office
of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room
350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective
September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish Class E airspace at
Louisville, GA, providing the controlled airspace required to support
the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for
Louisville Municipal Airport. Controlled airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface

within a 6.8-mile radius of the airport would be established for IFR
operations.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15,
2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
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
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal would be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 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 7400.11A,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016,
effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASO GA E5 Louisville, GA [New]

Louisville Municipal Airport, GA
    (Lat. 32[deg]59'09'' N., long. 82[deg]23'05'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.8-mile radius of Louisville Municipal Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on November 30, 2016.
Ryan W. Almasy,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2016-29631 Filed 12-9-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P