[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 61 (Friday, March 29, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11920-11923]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06131]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

48 CFR Parts 1516 and 1552

[EPA-HQ-OARM-2018-0610; FRL-9991-08-OARM]

Environmental Protection Agency Acquisition Regulation (EPAAR);
Award Term Incentive

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is issuing a
proposed rule to amend EPA Acquisition Regulation (EPAAR) award term
incentive policy, procedures, and clauses to remove ambiguity and
provide clarity with respect to what is required for a contractor to
successfully earn award terms.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 28, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OARM-2018-0610, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit any information
electronically that you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish
to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit: http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shakethia Allen, Policy, Training, and
Oversight Division, Acquisition Policy and Training Service Center
(3802R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

    1. Submitting Classified Business Information. Only submit CBI to
the EPA by mail. Do not submit CBI to the EPA website, https://www.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 submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions -The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) Part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives,
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

    Award terms are a form of incentive contract, offering additional
periods of performance without a new competition, rather than
additional profit or fee as a reward for achieving prescribed
performance measures. Award term incentives were developed in 1997 by
the Department of the Air Force and are not described in the Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR). In order to assist EPA contracting
officers seeking to use award term incentives, it is necessary to amend
the EPAAR to provide clear language of the requirements needed to
successfully award and earn award terms.

III. Proposed Rule

    The proposed rule amends EPAAR part 1516--Types of Contracts,
Subpart 1516.4--Incentive Contracts, 1516.406 Contract Clauses,
1516.401-70 Award Term Incentives, and 1516.401-270 Definition. The
proposed rule also amends EPAAR part 1552--Solicitation Provisions and
Contract Clauses, 1552.216-78 --Award Term Incentive Plan.
    1. EPAAR Sec.  1516.406 establishes the prescription for use of
related EPAAR clauses, including 1552.216-77, Award Term Incentive,
1552.216-78, Award Term Incentive Plan, and 1552.216-79, Award Term
Availability of Funds, in solicitations and contracts when award term
incentives are contemplated.
    2. EPAAR Sec.  1516.401-270 defines Acceptable Quality Level (AQL)
as the minimum percent of deliverables which are compliant with a given
performance standard that would permit a contractor to become eligible
for an award term incentive.
    3. EPAAR Sec.  1516.401-70 sets forth the overall framework
governing award term incentives including the prescribed performance
measures; i.e., the acceptable quality levels (AQL) which must be
achieved by a contractor to become eligible for an award term.
    4. EPAAR Sec.  1552.216-78 sets forth the performance criteria and
evaluation periods which will serve as the basis for the EPA's decision
on whether the contractor is eligible for an award term incentive.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993)
and is therefore not subject to review under the E.O.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden, as
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b), under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et.
seq.

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure
Act or any other statute; unless the agency certifies that the rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of
assessing the impact of this final rule on small entities, ``small
entity'' is defined as: (1) A small business that meets the definition
of a small business found in the Small Business Act and codified at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; or (3) a small organization that is any
not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and
is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of
this rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule
relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect
on all of the small entities subject to the rule. Award term incentives
will be available equally to large and small entities, so this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on small entities. Also,
this rule seeks to only clarify existing regulations. We continue to be
interested in the potential impacts of the rule on small entities and
welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, Pub. L.
104-4), establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, Local, and Tribal
governments and the private sector. This rule contains no Federal
mandates (under the regulatory provisions of the Title II of the UMRA)
for State, Local, and Tribal governments or the private sector. The
rule imposes no enforceable duty on any State, Local or Tribal
governments or the private sector. Thus, the rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and Local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects 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.'' This rule
does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects 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 as specified in
Executive Order 13132.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This rule does not have
tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),
applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be economically
significant as defined under E.O. 12886, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that may have a proportionate
effect on children. This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it
is not an economically significant rule as defined by Executive Order
12866, and because it does not involve decisions on environment health
or safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution or Use'' (66 FR 28335 (May 22, 2001), because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113,
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This action
does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering
the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States. EPA has determined that this proposed
rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it
does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment in the general public.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a major rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. Section 804(2) defines a ``major rule''
as any rule that the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget finds has
resulted in or is likely to result in (1) an annual effect on the
economy of $100,000,000 or more; (2) a major increase in costs or
prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local
government agencies, or geographic regions; or (3) significant adverse
effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity,
innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to
compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.
EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding this action under
section 801 as this is not a major rule by definition.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 1516 and 1552

    Government procurement, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: February 26, 2019.
Kimberly Patrick,
Director, Office of Acquisition Management.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, 48 CFR parts 1516 and 1552
are proposed to be amended as set forth below:

PART 1516--TYPES OF CONTRACTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 1516 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  5 U.S.C. 301and 41 U.S.C. 418b.

0
2. Amend section 1516.401-70 by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:

1516.401-70   Award term incentives.

* * * * *
    (b) Award term incentives are designed to motivate contractors to
provide superior performance. Superior performance must be defined in
the Award Term Incentive Plan. Accordingly, the prescribed performance
measures, i.e., acceptable quality levels (AQL), which must be achieved
by a contractor to become eligible for an award term will be in excess
of the AQLs necessary for Government acceptance of contract
deliverables, unless rationale is documented that such service is
beyond the contractor's capability or control.
* * * * *
0
3. Revise section 1516.401-270 to read as follows:

1516.401-270   Definition.

    Acceptable quality level (AQL) as used in this subpart means the
minimum percent of deliverables which are compliant with a given
performance standard that would permit a contractor to become eligible
for an award term incentive. The performance necessary for eligibility
for the award term incentive must be in excess of that necessary for
the Government acceptance of contract deliverables. The AQLs associated
with the award term incentive shall exceed the AQLs associated with the
acceptance of contract deliverables. For example, under contract X,
acceptable performance is 75 percent of reports submitted to the
Government within five days. However, to be eligible for an award term
incentive, 85 percent of reports must be submitted to the Government
within five days.
0
4. Amend section 1516.406 by revising paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as
follows:

1516.406  Contract clauses.

* * * * *
    (c) The Contracting Officer shall insert the clauses at 1552.216-
77, Award Term Incentive, 1552.216-78, Award Term Incentive Plan, and
1552.216-79, Award Term Availability of Funds, in solicitations and
contracts when award term incentives are contemplated. The clauses at
1552.216-77 and 1552.216-78 may be used on substantially the same-as
basis.
    (d) If the Contracting Officer wishes to use the ratings set forth
in the Department of Defense Contractor Performance Assessment
Reporting System on the contract at hand as the basis for contractor
eligibility for an award term incentive, the Contracting Officer shall
insert the clause at 1552.216-78.

PART 1552--SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES

0
5. The authority citation for part 1552 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  5 U.S.C. 301 and 41 U.S.C. 418b.

0
6. Amend section 1552.216-78 by revising paragraph (e) to read as
follows:

1552.216-78  Award term incentive plan.

* * * * *
    (e) [If the contract will contain a quality assurance surveillance
plan (QASP), reference the QASP, e.g., attachment 2. Typically, the
performance standards and AQLs will be defined in the QASP]

(End of clause)
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-06131 Filed 3-28-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 20, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 202)]
[Notices]
[Page 64724-64725]
[DOCID:fr20oc10-57]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2010-0413; FRL-9216-2; EPA ICR No. 0234.10; OMB Control
No. 2080-0021]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; Performance Evaluation Studies on
Wastewater Laboratories (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that an Information
Collection Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an
existing approved collection. The ICR, which is abstracted below,
describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated
burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before November 19,
2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OECA-
2010-0413 to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Enforcement and
Compliance Docket, Mailcode 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB by mail to: Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention:
Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Yellin, Office of Compliance,
Agriculture Division, 2225A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-
564-2970; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On June 16, 2010 (75 FR 34110), EPA sought comments on this
ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any
additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB
within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OECA-2010-0413, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Enforcement and
Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public
Reading Room is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is
202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and
Compliance Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://
www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, confidential business information (CBI), or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to http://
www.regulations.gov.
    Title: Performance Evaluation Studies on Wastewater Laboratories
(Renewal).
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 0234.10, OMB Control No. 2080-0021.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2010.
Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: Discharge Monitoring Report-Quality Assurance (DMR-QA)
participation is mandatory for major and selected minor permit holders
under the Clean Water Act's National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES), Section 308. The DMR-QA study is designed to evaluate
the analytic ability of the laboratories that perform chemical,
microbiological and whole effluent toxicity (WET) analyses required in
the NPDES permits for reporting results in the Discharge Monitoring
Reports (DMR). Under DMR-QA, the permit holder is responsible: For
having their in-house and/or contract laboratories perform proficiency
test samples and submit results for grading by proficiency testing (PT)
providers. Graded results are transmitted by either the permittee or PT
provider to the appropriate Federal or State NPDES regulatory
authority. Permit holders are responsible for submitting corrective
action reports to the appropriate regulatory authority.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 6.3
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;

search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: NPDES permittees designated by the
EPA region or State with permitting responsibility and laboratories
doing chemical/microbiological analysis and whole-effluent toxicity
testing for these major dischargers.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 6,589.
    Frequency of Response: Annual.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 41,511.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $2,461,426, includes $1,251,910
annualized capital or O&M costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 5,840 hours in the
total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of
Approved ICR Burdens. This decrease reflects EPA's granting a waiver
for four States to use their laboratory certification program as a
substitute for the DMR-QA program. This resulted in a reduction in the
average number of participants from 7,516 to 6,589. The maintenance and
operational cost has increased by $11,770 due to increased costs for
obtaining proficiency testing samples.

    Dated: October 13, 2010.
John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2010-26455 Filed 10-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 148 (Thursday, August 3, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36086-36090]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16371]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0676; FRL-9961-69]

Ethaboxam; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
ethaboxam in or on Ginseng; Pepper/eggplant, subgroup 8-10B; Vegetable,
cucurbit, group 9; and Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C.
Valent USA Corporation requested these tolerances under the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective August 3, 2017. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before October 2, 2017,
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-2015-0676, 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), West William Jefferson Clinton 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<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Goodis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main 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 EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0676 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
October 2, 2017. 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 Confidential Business Information (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-2015-0676, 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 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. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of April 25, 2016 (81 FR 24044) (FRL-9944-
86), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
5F8383) by Valent USA Corporation, 1600 Riviera Avenue,

Suite 200, Walnut Creek, CA 94596. The petition requested that 40 CFR
180.622 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the
fungicide ethaboxam, N-(cyano-2-thienylmethyl)-4-ethyl-2-(ethlyamino)-
5-thiazolecarboxamide, in or on ginseng at 0.09 parts per million
(ppm); Pepper/eggplant (Crop Subgroup 8-10B) at 0.6 ppm; Cucurbit
Vegetables (Crop Group 9) at 0.3 ppm; and Tuberous and corm Vegetable
Subgroup 1C at 0.01 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the
petition prepared by Valent USA Corporation, the registrant, which is
available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no
comments received in response to the notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
corrected proposed commodity definitions and revised certain proposed
crop tolerances. The reasons for these changes are explained in Unit
IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for ethaboxam including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with ethaboxam follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    The toxicology database for ethaboxam is complete. The male
reproductive system is a target for ethaboxam, with alterations to the
male reproductive organs as well as functional effects on male
reproduction observed in several oral subchronic and chronic rat
studies. In subchronic studies in rats, there were severe testicular
alterations including small testes, decreased testicular weight and
atrophy, abnormal spermatids in the testes, and interstitial cell
hyperplasia. In the epididymis, there were small epididymides,
decreased epididymal weights, abnormal spermatogenic cells, and absent
spermatozoa. Decreased seminal vesicle and prostate weights were also
observed. Effects were also seen after chronic exposure including
decreased epididymal and seminal vesicle weights, seminiferous tubule
atrophy, small/flaccid testes and epididymides, abnormal spermatogenic
cells in the epididymal duct, absent sperm, epididymal vacuolation, and
reduced colloid in the prostate. Fine vacuolation of the adrenal zona
glomerulosa was also observed in both sexes in the rat studies, along
with decreased body weight in females. There were no treatment-related
male reproductive effects observed in mice, but there were effects seen
in the liver. In mice, increased liver weights associated with
centrilobular hypertrophy and liver histopathology (eosinophilic foci)
were observed after chronic exposure. In dogs, decreased body weight
and body weight gain, decreased thymus weights and thymus atrophy/
involution, and hematopoiesis of the spleen were noted after subchronic
exposure. No treatment-related effects were noted in dogs after chronic
exposure. There is no concern for neurotoxicity or immunotoxicity after
exposure to ethaboxam. No evidence of increased quantitative or
qualitative susceptibility was seen in the developmental toxicity
studies in rats and rabbits; however, increased qualitative
susceptibility was seen in the rat reproduction study where decreased
body weight, decreased viability, and delayed sexual maturation were
seen in offspring animals in the presence of limited parental effects
(decreased body weight and body weight gain). Ethaboxam is classified
as having ``suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential,'' based on
an increased incidence of benign Leydig cell tumors in male rats. The
Agency has determined that quantification of cancer risk using a non-
linear approach (based on the POD of 5.5 mg/kg/day for establishing a
chronic reference dose) would adequately account for all chronic
toxicity since the POD is 6-fold lower than the lowest dose that
induced tumors.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by ethaboxam as well as the no-observed-adverse-
effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level
(LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document ``Ethaboxam. Human Health Risk
Assessment for the Proposed First Food Uses on Fruiting Vegetables
(Pepper/Eggplant Subgroup 8-10B), Cucurbit Vegetables (Group 9),
Ginseng, and Potato (Tuberous and Corm Vegetable Subgroup 1C)'' at
pages 27-32 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0676.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

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

human risk assessment is shown in the Table of this unit.

    Table--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Ethaboxam for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Point of departure
        Exposure/scenario            and uncertainty/     RfD, PAD, LOC for     Study and toxicological effects
                                      safety factors       risk  assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (All Populations)..  No appropriate endpoint attributable to a single dose identified.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary (All populations)  NOAEL= 5.5 mg/kg/day  Chronic RfD = 0.055  Combined Chronic/Carcinogenicity-
                                   UFA = 10x...........   mg/kg/day.           Rat.
                                   UFH = 10x...........  cPAD = 0.055 mg/kg/  LOAEL = 16.4 mg/kg/day based on
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........   day.                 effects observed in the male
                                                                               reproductive organs (testes,
                                                                               epididymides, prostate, seminal
                                                                               vesicles).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation)  Classification: ``Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenicity'', based on an
                                    increased incidence of benign Leydig Cell tumors in males. Cancer risk has
                                    been assessed using a non-linear approach.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level
  of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-
  level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. FQPA SF = Food Quality
  Protection Act safety factor. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human
  (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to ethaboxam, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for
tolerances as well as all existing ethaboxam tolerances in 40 CFR
180.622. EPA assessed dietary exposures from ethaboxam in food as
follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
    No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for
ethaboxam; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment
is unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the 2003-2008 U.S.
Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). Tolerance-
level residues and 100% crop treated were assumed for all crops.
Empirical data indicate that residues of ethaboxam in processed grape
(e.g., juice, raisins, etc.) and potato (e.g., flakes, chips, etc.)
commodities are not expected to exceed the tolerance level for grapes
or potatoes; therefore, no concentration factors were used in this
analysis.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that a nonlinear RfD approach is appropriate for assessing
cancer risk to ethaboxam. Cancer risk was assessed using the same
exposure estimates as discussed in Unit III.C.1.ii., chronic exposure.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the
dietary assessment for ethaboxam. Tolerance-level residues and/or 100%
CT were assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for ethaboxam in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of ethaboxam. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on the Pesticide in Water Calculator (PWC) v1.50 and
Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW), the estimated
drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of ethaboxam for chronic
exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 3.91 ppb for
surface water and 7.4 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 7.4 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    Ethaboxam is not registered for any specific use patterns that
would result in residential exposure.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found ethaboxam to share a common mechanism of toxicity
with any other substances, and ethaboxam does not appear to produce a
toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that ethaboxam does not
have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For
information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a
common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of
such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the

FQPA Safety Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains
the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor
when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is evidence of
increased qualitative susceptibility in the rat developmental and
reproduction studies. Considering the overall toxicity profile and the
doses and endpoints selected for risk assessment for ethaboxam, the
degree of concern for prenatal and postnatal effects observed in the
studies is low based on the following: The developmental/offspring
effects observed in the studies are well characterized and occur in the
presence of maternal toxicity; a clear NOAEL has been identified in
both of the studies; and there are no residual uncertainties for pre-
and/or postnatal toxicity. Furthermore, the toxicology endpoint
established for risk assessment is based on a lower NOAEL than the
reproductive NOAEL, and thus is considered protective of developmental/
offspring effects.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1x. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for ethaboxam is complete.
    ii. There is no indication that ethaboxam is a neurotoxic chemical
and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or
additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. Although there is evidence of increased qualitative
susceptibility in the rat reproduction study, the offspring effects
observed in the study are well characterized and clear NOAELs/LOAELs
have been identified in the study for the effects of concern.
Additionally, the points of departure (PODs) selected for risk
assessment are protective of potential offspring effects.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100% CT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to ethaboxam in drinking water. These assessments
will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by ethaboxam.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
ethaboxam is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
ethaboxam from food and water will utilize 36% of the cPAD for children
1-2 years old the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
There are no residential uses for ethaboxam.
    3. Short-term and intermediate-term risk. Short-term (and
intermediate-term) aggregate exposure takes into account short-term
(and intermediate-term) residential exposure plus chronic exposure to
food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Although
short-term and intermediate-term adverse effects were identified,
ethaboxam is not registered for any use patterns that would result in
short-term or intermediate-term residential exposure. Because there is
no residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been
assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as
protective as the POD used to assess short-term or intermediate-term
risk), no further assessment of residential risk is necessary. EPA
relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating short-term
and intermediate-term risk for ethaboxam.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. As discussed in Unit
III.A., EPA has determined that the chronic reference dose (cRfD) is
protective of the potential cancer effects. Because chronic exposure
does not exceed the Agency's level of concern, EPA concludes that
ethaboxam does not pose a cancer risk.
    5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to ethaboxam residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology Liquid Chromotography with tandem
mass spectrometrometry (LC-MS/MS) is available to enforce the tolerance
expression.
    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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.
    MRLs have not been established by Codex for residues of ethaboxam
on the commodities in this action.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    To reflect the correct commodity definitions, EPA revised the
proposed commodity listings for Potato (Tuberous and Corm Vegetable
Subgroup 1C); Peppers (Pepper/Eggplant Crop Subgroup 8-10B); and
Cucurbit Vegetables (Crop Group 9) to Vegetable, tuberous and corm,
subgroup 1C; Pepper/eggplant, subgroup 8-10B; and Vegetable, cucurbit,
group 9, respectively.
    The petitioner requested that the tolerances for Pepper/eggplant,
subgroup 8-10B be set at 0.6 ppm and Ginseng be set at 0.09 ppm;
however, the Agency is establishing the tolerances at 0.90 ppm and 0.10
ppm, respectively, based on Agency calculations using data obtained
from the submitted residue studies. The Agency used the Organization of
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) maximum residue limit (MRL)
calculation

procedures to derive the recommended levels. For crop groups, and per
EPA's current policy, a tolerance level for each representative
commodity was calculated separately, and then the maximum value within
each crop group was selected as the tolerance level.
    All of EPA's tolerance levels are expressed to provide sufficient
precision for enforcement purposes. This may include the addition of
trailing zeros, as was the case for Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 for
which a tolerance of 0.3 ppm was proposed and a tolerance at 0.30 ppm
is being established.
    Finally, EPA is revising the tolerance expression to clarify (1)
that, as provided in FFDCA section 408(a)(3), the tolerance covers
metabolites and degradates of ethaboxam not specifically mentioned; and
(2) that compliance with the specified tolerance levels is to be
determined by measuring only the specific compounds mentioned in the
tolerance expression.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of ethaboxam (N-
(cyano-2-thienylmethyl)-4-ethyl-2-(ethlyamino)-5-thiazolecarboxamide),
including its metabolites and degradates, in or on Ginseng at 0.10 ppm;
Pepper/eggplant, subgroup 8-10B at 0.90 ppm; Vegetable, cucurbit, group
9 at 0.30 ppm; and Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C at 0.01
ppm. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified above is to be
determined by measuring only ethaboxam (N-(cyano-2-thienylmethyl)-4-
ethyl-2-(ethlyamino)-5-thiazolecarboxamide).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action 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 action does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under 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 action 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. 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 action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. 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: June 29, 2017.
Donna Davis,
Acting 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. Section 180.622, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  180.622   Ethaboxam; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of ethaboxam,
including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities
listed in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance levels
specified below is to be determined by measuring only ethaboxam (N-
(cyano-2-thienylmethyl)-4-ethyl-2-(ethylamino)-5-thiazolecarboxamide)
in or on the commodity.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Parts per
                        Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ginseng.................................................            0.10
Grape \1\...............................................             6.0
Pepper/eggplant subgroup 8-10B..........................            0.90
Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9............................            0.30
Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C...............            0.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There is no U.S. registration as of September 27, 2006.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-16371 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 116 (Monday, June 19, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 27947]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12715]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Certification:
Mechanics, Repairman, Parachute Riggers

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew a previously approved
information collection. FAR part 65 prescribes requirements for
mechanics, repairmen, parachute riggers, and inspection authorizations.
The information collected shows applicant eligibility for
certification.

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

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

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0022.
    Title: Certification: Mechanics, Repairman, Parachute Riggers.
    Form Numbers: FAA Forms 8610-1, 8610-2.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: FAR Part 65 prescribes, among other things, rules
governing the issuance of certificates and associated rating for
mechanic, repairman, parachute riggers, and issuance of inspection
authorizations. The information collected on the forms submitted for
renewal is used for evaluation by the FAA, which is necessary for
issuing a certificate and/or rating. Certification is necessary to
ensure qualifications of the applicant.
    Respondents: An estimated 66,153 mechanics, repairmen, and
parachute riggers.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 20 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 44,841 hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 5, 2017.
Ronda L. Thompson,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, Performance, Policy, and
Records Management Branch, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2017-12715 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 71 (Thursday, April 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22514-22516]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07756]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Submission Deadline for Schedule Information for
Chicago O'Hare International Airport, John F. Kennedy International
Airport, Los Angeles International Airport, Newark Liberty
International Airport, and San Francisco International Airport for the
Winter 2023/2024 Scheduling Season

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

ACTION: Notice of submission deadline.

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

SUMMARY: Under this notice, the FAA announces the submission deadline
of May 11, 2023, for Winter 2023/2024 flight schedules at Chicago
O'Hare International Airport (ORD), John F. Kennedy International
Airport (JFK), Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), Newark Liberty
International Airport (EWR), and San Francisco International Airport
(SFO).

DATES: Schedules should be submitted by May 11, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Schedules may be submitted to the Slot Administration Office
by email to: [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al Meilus, Manager, Slot
Administration and Capacity Analysis, FAA ATO System Operations
Services, AJR-G, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document provides routine notice to
carriers serving capacity-constrained airports in the United States,
including ORD, JFK, LAX, EWR, and SFO. In particular, this notice
announces the

deadline for carriers to submit schedules for the Winter 2023/2024
scheduling season. The FAA deadline coincides with the schedule
submission deadline established in the Calendar of Coordination
Activities as published by the International Air Transport Association
(IATA).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ https://www.iata.org/contentassets/4ede2aabfcc14a55919e468054d714fe/calendar-coordination-activities.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

General Information for All Airports

    The FAA has designated JFK as a Level 3 airport consistent with the
Worldwide Slot Guidelines (WSG).\2\ The FAA currently limits scheduled
operations at JFK by order that expires on October 26, 2024.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The FAA generally applies the WSG to the extent there is no
conflict with U.S. law or regulation. The FAA recognizes the WSG has
been replaced by the Worldwide Airports Slot Guidelines (WASG)
edition 1, effective June 1, 2020, and subsequently WASG edition 2,
effective July 1, 2022. The WASG is published jointly by Airports
Council International-World, IATA, and the Worldwide Airport
Coordinators Group (WWACG). While the FAA is considering whether to
implement certain changes to the Guidelines in the United States, it
will continue to apply WSG edition 9.
    \3\ Operating Limitations at John F. Kennedy International
Airport, 73 FR 3510 (Jan. 18, 2008), as most recently extended 87 FR
65161 (Oct. 28, 2022). The slot coordination parameters for JFK are
set forth in this Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has designated EWR, LAX, ORD, and SFO as Level 2 airports
\4\ subject to a schedule review process premised upon voluntary
cooperation. The Winter 2023/2024 scheduling season is from October 29,
2023, through March 30, 2024, in recognition of the WSG winter
scheduling period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ These designations remain effective until the FAA announces
a change in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA is primarily concerned about scheduled and other regularly
conducted commercial operations during designated hours, but carriers
may submit schedule plans for the entire day. The designated hours for
the Winter 2023/2024 scheduling season are: at EWR and JFK, from 0600
to 2300 Eastern Time (1100 to 0400 UTC); at LAX and SFO, from 0600 to
2300 Pacific Time (1400 to 0700 UTC); and at ORD, from 0600 to 2100
Central Time (1200 to 0300 UTC). These hours are unchanged from
previous scheduling seasons.
    Carriers should submit schedule information in sufficient detail
including, at minimum, the marketing or operating carrier, flight
number, scheduled time of operation, frequency, aircraft equipment, and
effective dates. IATA standard schedule information format and data
elements for communications at Level 2 and Level 3 airports in the IATA
Standard Schedules Information Manual (SSIM) Chapter 6 may be used. The
WSG provides additional information on schedule submissions at Level 2
and Level 3 airports. Some carriers at JFK manage and track slots
through FAA-assigned Slot ID numbers corresponding to an arrival or
departure slot in a particular half-hour on a particular day of week
and date. The FAA has a similar voluntary process for tracking
schedules at EWR with Reference IDs, and certain carriers are managing
their schedules accordingly. The primary users of IDs are United States
and Canadian carriers that have the highest frequencies and
considerable schedule changes throughout the season and can benefit
from a simplified exchange of information not dependent on full flight
details. Carriers are encouraged to submit schedule requests at those
airports using Slot or Reference IDs.
    As stated in the WSG, schedule facilitation at a Level 2 airport is
based on the following: (1) schedule adjustments are mutually agreed
upon between the carriers and the facilitator; (2) the intent to avoid
exceeding the airport's coordination parameters; (3) the concepts of
historic precedence and series of slots do not apply at Level 2
airports (although WSG recommends giving priority to approved services
that plan to operate unchanged from the previous equivalent season at
Level 2 airports); and (4) the facilitator should adjust the smallest
number of flights by the least amount of time necessary to avoid
exceeding the airport's coordination parameters. Consistent with the
WSG, the success of Level 2 in the United States depends on the
voluntary cooperation of carriers.
    The FAA considers several factors and priorities that are
consistent with the WSG as it reviews schedule and slot requests at
Level 2 and Level 3 airports, including (1) historic slots or services
from the previous equivalent season over new demand for the same
timings; (2) services that are unchanged over services that plan to
change time or other capacity relevant parameters; (3) introduction of
year-round services; (4) effective period of operation; (5) regularly
planned operations over ad hoc operations; and (6) other operational
factors that may limit a carrier's timing flexibility.
    The FAA seeks to maintain close communications with carriers and
terminal schedule facilitators on potential runway schedule issues or
terminal and gate issues that may affect the runway times. In addition
to applying these priorities from the WSG, the U.S. Government has
adopted a number of measures and procedures to promote competition and
new entry at U.S. slot-controlled and schedule-facilitated airports.
    Slot management in the United States differs in some respects from
procedures in other countries. In the United States, the FAA is
responsible for facilitation and coordination of runway access for
takeoffs and landings at Level 2 and Level 3 airports; however, the
airport authority or its designee is responsible for facilitation and
coordination of terminal/gate/airport facility access. The process with
the individual airports for terminal access and other airport services
is separate from, and in addition to, the FAA schedule review based on
runway capacity.
    Generally, the FAA uses average hourly runway capacity throughput
for airports and performance metrics in conducting its schedule review
at Level 2 airports and determining the scheduling limits at Level 3
airports included in FAA rules or orders.\5\ The FAA also considers
other factors that can affect operations, such as capacity changes due
to runway, taxiway, or other airport construction, air traffic control
procedural changes, airport surface operations, and historical or
projected flight delays and congestion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The FAA typically determines an airport's average adjusted
runway capacity or typical throughput for Level 2 airports by
reviewing hourly data on the arrival and departure rates that air
traffic control indicates could be accepted for that hour, commonly
known as ``called'' rates. The FAA also reviews the actual number of
arrivals and departures that operated in the same hour. Generally,
the FAA uses the higher of the two numbers, called or actual, for
identifying trends and schedule review purposes. Some dates are
excluded from analysis, such as during periods when extended airport
closures or construction could affect capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the FAA notes that the schedule information submitted by
carriers to the FAA may be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA). The WSG also provides for release of
information at certain stages of slot coordination and schedule
facilitation. In general, once it acts on a schedule submission or slot
request, the FAA may release information on slot allocation or similar
slot transactions, or schedule information reviewed as part of the
schedule facilitation process. The FAA does not expect that practice to
change, and most slot and schedule information would not be exempt from
release under FOIA. The FAA recognizes that some carriers may submit
information on schedule plans that is both customarily and actually
treated as private. Carriers that submit such confidential schedule
information should clearly mark the information, or any relevant
portions

thereof, as proprietary information (``PROPIN''). The FAA will take the
necessary steps to protect properly designated information to the
extent allowable by law.

EWR General Information

    Consistent with the WSG, carriers are asked for their voluntary
cooperation to adjust schedules to meet the targeted scheduling limits
in order to minimize potential congestion and delay. For the Winter
2023/2024 scheduling season, the voluntary, targeted hourly scheduling
limits remains at 79 operations and 43 operations per half-hour.\6\ To
help with a balance between arrivals and departures, the targeted
maximum number of scheduled arrivals or departures, respectively, is 43
in an hour and 24 in a half-hour. These targets are expected to allow
some higher levels of operations in certain periods (not to exceed the
hourly limits) and some recovery from lower demand in adjacent periods.
Consistent with general established practice at EWR, the FAA will
accept flights above the limits if the flights were operated as
approved, or treated as operated, by the same carrier on a regular
basis in the previous corresponding season (i.e., Winter 2022/2023) and
consistent with the DOT reassignment of 16 peak-hour runway timings.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 83 FR 21335 (May 9, 2018).
    \7\ See Department of Transportation Order 2022-7-1, Docket DOT-
OST-2021-0103, served July 5, 2022, ``Reassignment of Schedules at
Newark-Liberty International Airport''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Carriers are reminded FAA approval for runway times is separate
from the approval process for gates or other airport infrastructure and
both are essential for the success of Level 2 at EWR. Schedule
facilitation at Level 2 airports is designed to engender collaboration
and gain mutual agreement between the carriers and the FAA regarding
schedules and potential adjustments to stay within the performance
goals and capacity limits of the airport and to mitigate delays and
congestion that would result in the need for Level 3 slot controls. The
FAA expects that all carriers operating at EWR will respect the
targeted scheduling limits and work cooperatively with the FAA in order
to avoid unacceptable delays and other adverse operational impacts at
the airport.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 7, 2023.
Alyce Hood-Fleming,
Vice President, System Operations Services.
[FR Doc. 2023-07756 Filed 4-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: May 31, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 104)]
[Notices]
[Page 30910-30911]
[DOCID:fr31my06-81]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

May 23, 2006.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings.
    Docket Numbers: ER05-6-065; EL04-135-067; EL02-111-085; EL03-212-
081.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: PJM Transmission Owners submits revised tariff sheets
to its April 24, 2006 filing.
    Filed Date: May 16, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060519-0121.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 6, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-1452-002.
    Applicants: Duke Power Company LLC.
    Description: Duke Power Company LLC submits an amendment to its
Second Revised Service Agreement No. 342 and Affected System Operating
Agreement.
    Filed Date: May 16, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060519-0088.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 6, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-191-002; ER06-193-002.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.; New England Participating
Transmission Owners; Maine Electric Power Company; New England Power
Pool Participants Committee.
    Description: ISO New England, Inc. et al. submit modifications to
parts of Schedules 22 & 23 of the OATT, et al.
    Filed Date: May 15, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060519-0158.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 5, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-593-002.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. submits the revised
agreement as Exhibit I and II to the executed Agreement to Sponsor
Facilities Upgrades with Redbud Energy, LP et al. filed on April 26,
2006 pursuant to Order 614.
    Filed Date: May 17, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060519-0066.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 7, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-796-001.
    Applicants: Emera Energy U.S. Subsidiary No. 2, Inc.
    Description: Emera Energy U.S. Subsidiary 2, Inc. submits a letter
clarifying its March 29, 2006 filing.
    Filed Date: May 15, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060519-0117.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 5, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-878-001.
    Applicants: MMC Chula Vista LLC.
    Description: MMC Chula Vista LLC submits a replacement for
Attachment A & B to its market-based rate application and tariff sheets
for FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 1.
    Filed Date: May 17, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060519-0065.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 7, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-879-001.
    Applicants: MMC Escondido LLC.
    Description: MMC Escondido LLC submits a replacement for Attachment
A & B to its market-based rate application and tariff sheets for FERC
Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 1.
    Filed Date: May 17, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060519-0064.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 7, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-891-001.
    Applicants: Gauley River Power Partners, L.P.
    Description: Gauley River Power Partner, L.P. submits an errata to
its notice of cancellation filed on April 27, 2006.
    Filed Date: May 17, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060519-0067.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 7, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1000-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Services, Inc.
    Description: Entergy Services Inc. on behalf of Entergy Operating
Companies submits revisions to Schedule 2 of its OATT.
    Filed Date: May 12, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060512-4007.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 2, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1001-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator Inc.
submits proposed revisions to Schedule 10 of its OAT&EM Tariff, Third
Revised Volume No. 1.
    Filed Date: May 12, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060519-0058.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 2, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1002-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: ISO New England Inc. submits its first Capital
Projects Report and the schedule of the unamortized costs of its funded
capital expenditures for the first Quarter of 2006.
    Filed Date: May 15, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060519-0059.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 5, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1003-000.
    Applicants: Mirant Corporation.
    Description: Mirant Americas Energy Marketing, LP submits a notice
of cancellation of Third Revised Rate Schedule FERC No. 1.
    Filed Date: May 15, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060519-0057.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 5, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1004-000.
    Applicants: Western Systems Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Western Systems Power Pool Inc. submits its request
for FERC to amend its WSPP Agreement to include Cinergy Marketing &
Trading LP, Mirant Energy Trading LLC and Old Lane Commodities, LP as
members of the WSPP.
    Filed Date: May 15, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060519-0056.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 5, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1005-000.
    Applicants: Avista Corporation.
    Description: Avista Corp. dba Avista Utilities submits a non-
conforming Long-Term Service Agreement with Morgan Stanley Capital
Group, designated as FERC Rate Schedule 471.
    Filed Date: May 17, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060519-0055.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 7, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1006-000.
    Applicants: International Transmission Company; Midwest Independent
Transmission Operator, Inc.
    Description: International Transmission Co. et al. submits revised
tariff sheets to Midwest ISO's Open Access Transmission and Energy
Market Tariff, FERC Electric Tariff, Third Revised Volume 1, to become
effective July 1, 2006.
    Filed Date: May 17, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060519-0053.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 7, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1007-000.
    Applicants: IEP Power Marketing LLC.
    Description: IEP Power Marketing LLC submits a Petition for
Acceptance of Initial Waiver and Blanket Authority of FERC Electric
Tariff, Original Volume No. 1.
    Filed Date: May 17, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060519-0051.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 7, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1008-000.
    Applicants: Southern Company Services, Inc.; Alabama Power Company
    Description: Southern Company Services, Inc., agent for Alabama
Power Co, submits a notice of cancellation of their Interconnection
Agreement with Mobile Energy Services Co. designated as Service
Agreement 465.
    Filed Date: May 17, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060519-0052.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 7, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1009-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Co. submits 4
interconnection agreements with the City of Vernon, CA.
    Filed Date: May 17, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060519-0017.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 7, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1010-000.
    Applicants: Southern Company Services, Inc.; Alabama Power Company
    Description: Southern Company Services, Inc., agent for Alabama
Power Co., submits a notice of cancellation of Interconnection
Agreement w/Lone Oak Energy Center etc.
    Filed Date: May 17, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060519-0050.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 7, 2006.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov.
 To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet

access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-8325 Filed 5-30-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 237 (Monday, December 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73486-73487]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29674]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3350-EM: Docket ID FEMA-2012-0002]

Massachusetts; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of an Emergency
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (FEMA-3350-EM), dated October 28,
2012, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: November 8, 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: Notice is hereby given that the incident
period for this emergency is closed effective November 8, 2012.

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. 2012-29674 Filed 12-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 131 (Friday, July 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 44604]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16166]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14786-000]

Owyhee Hydro LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

    On June 30, 2016, Owyhee Hydro LLC filed a revised application for
a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act
(FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Owyhee Pumped Storage
Project (Owyhee Project or project) to be located on Lake Owyhee near
Adrian in Malheur County, Oregon. The sole purpose of a preliminary
permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a
license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does
not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing
activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others
without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A new
1,200-foot-long zoned earth and rockfill or concrete-face rockfill dam
forming a lined upper reservoir with a surface area of 109 acres and a
storage capacity of 4,035 acre-feet at a maximum surface elevation of
4,320 feet mean sea level (msl); (2) an existing 833 foot-long concrete
arch dam forming the existing Lake Owyhee (lower reservoir) with a
surface area of 13,900 acres and a storage capacity of 1,120,000 acre-
feet at a maximum surface elevation of 2,650 msl; (3) a new 14,100
foot-long conduit connecting the upper and lower reservoirs consisting
of a 2,200 foot-long, 17.1 foot-diameter concrete lined low-pressure
tunnel, a 7,100 foot-long, 17.1 foot-diameter concrete and steel-lined
pressure shaft, and a 4,800-foot-long, 20.5 foot-diameter concrete-
lined tailrace; (4) a new 80 feet long by 280 feet wide by 120 feet
high powerhouse containing four reversible pump-turbine units rated at
125 megawatts (MW) each for a total capacity of 500 MW; (5) either 2.6
or 8 miles of 500-kilovolt transmission line interconnecting with the
Boardman-Hemingway Line, depending on design of infrastructure; and (6)
appurtenant facilities. The estimated annual generation of the Owyhee
Project would be 1,533,000 megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Matthew Shapiro, CEO, Gridflex Energy, LLC,
1210 W. Franklin St., Ste. 2, Boise, Idaho 83702; phone: (208) 246-
9925.
    FERC Contact: Julia Kolberg; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-14786-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14768) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: July 1, 2016.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-16166 Filed 7-7-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 69)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 19143-19144]
[DOCID:fr09ap08-3]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0004; Airspace Docket No. 08-ASW-2]

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Huntsville, AR

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: This action confirms the effective date of the direct final
rule that establishes Class E airspace at Huntsville Municipal Airport,
Huntsville, Arkansas, published in the Federal Register February 15,
2008 (73 FR 8794) Docket No. FAA-2008-0004.

DATES: Effective Dates: 0901 UTC April 10, 2008. 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 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    The FAA published a direct final rule with request for comments in
the Federal Register February 15, 2008 (73 FR 8794), Docket No. FAA-
2008-0004. The FAA uses the direct final rule procedure for non-
controversial rules where the FAA believes that there will be no
adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that
no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse
comment, or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse comment,
was received within the comment period, the regulation would become
effective on April 10, 2008. No adverse comments were received; thus,
this notice confirms that the direct final rule will become effective
on this date.
* * * * *

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on March 31, 2008.
Walter Tweedy,
Acting Manager, System Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. E8-7248 Filed 4-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register: June 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 119)]
[Notices]
[Page 35515-35516]
[DOCID:fr22jn10-85]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2006-25756]

Commercial Driver's License (CDL) Standards: Granting of
Exemption; Volvo Trucks North America

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition; granting of application for
exemption.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to grant Volvo Trucks North
America, Inc.'s (Volvo) application for exemption to enable one of its
drivers to test-drive commercial motor vehicles (CMV) in the United
States without a commercial driver's license (CDL) issued by one of the
States. Volvo asserts that the exemption is necessary to support a
field test to meet future air quality standards and to test-drive Volvo
prototype CMVs. Volvo's driver holds a valid CDL issued in Sweden but
lacks the U.S. residency necessary to obtain a CDL issued by one of the
States. FMCSA believes the knowledge and skills testing and training
program that drivers must undergo to obtain a Swedish CDL ensure that
Volvo's driver will achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or
greater than, the level of safety achieved without the exemption.

DATES: This exemption is effective June 22, 2010 and expires June 22,
2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Schultz, Driver and Carrier
Operations Division, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operations,
MC-PSD, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the CDL requirements in 49 CFR 383.23 for a 2-year period if it
finds ``* * * such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety
that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved absent such exemption* * *'' (49 CFR 381.305 (a)). FMCSA has
evaluated Volvo's application on its merits and decided to grant
exemption to Volvo's field test engineer, Edvard Lundgren, for a 2-year
period.

Volvo's Application for Exemption

    Volvo applied for exemption from the 49 CFR 383.23 requirement that
the operator of a CMV obtain a CDL issued by one of the States. Section
383.3 of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) requires
States to abide by the standards of 49 CFR part 383 when issuing CDLs.
Part 383 requires applicants for CDLs to be residents of the State to
which they make application. The Volvo driver for whom this exemption
is sought is a citizen and resident of Sweden; therefore, he cannot
apply for a CDL in any State of the United States. A copy of the Volvo
request for exemption from section 383.23 is in the docket identified
at the beginning of this notice.
    This exemption enables Edvard Lundgren to test-drive, on U.S.
highways, Volvo CMVs that are assembled, sold or primarily used in the
U.S. Volvo currently employs this driver in Sweden, and wants him to be
able to test-drive these Volvo prototype CMVs in ``real world''
environments at and near its test site in Phoenix, Arizona. Edvard
Lundgren was required to satisfy strict CDL testing standards in Sweden
to obtain a CDL. He is a highly trained, experienced CMV operator whose
Swedish driving record reflects no violations of law. Volvo believes
that Lundgren's driving under this exemption will maintain a level of
safety equivalent to the level of safety that would be obtained absent
the exemption.

Method To Ensure an Equivalent or Greater Level of Safety

    Drivers applying for a Swedish-issued CDL must undergo a training
program and pass knowledge and skills tests. Volvo believes these
prerequisites ensure that exemption for this driver will provide a
level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of
safety obtained by complying with the U.S. CDL requirements. FMCSA has
previously determined that the process for obtaining a Swedish-issued
CDL adequately assesses the driver's ability to operate CMVs in the
U.S. safely. Therefore, the process for obtaining a Swedish-issued CDL
is considered to be comparable to, or as effective as, the requirements
of 49 CFR part 383.

Comments

    The Agency received no response to its request for public comments
published in the Federal Register on February 23, 2010 (75 FR 8181).

Terms and Conditions of the Exemption

    Based upon its evaluation of the Volvo application, FMCSA grants an
exemption from the CDL requirement of 49 CFR 383.23 to allow Volvo's
driver, Edvard Lundgren, to test-drive CMVs within the United States,
subject to the following terms and conditions: (1) That this driver is
subject to the drug and alcohol regulations of 49 CFR part 382,
including testing, (2) that this driver is subject to the same driver
disqualification rules under 49 CFR parts 383 and 391 that apply to
other CMV drivers in the U.S., (3) that this driver keeps a copy of the
exemption on the vehicle at all times, (4) that Volvo notifies FMCSA in
writing of any accident, as defined in 49 CFR 390.5, involving this
driver, and (5) that Volvo notifies FMCSA in writing if this driver is
convicted of a disqualifying offense identified in sections 383.51 or
391.15 of the FMCSRs.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), the exemption will
be valid for 2 years unless earlier revoked by the FMCSA. The exemption
will be revoked if: (1) The Volvo driver fails to comply with the terms
and conditions of the exemption, (2) the exemption results in a lower
level of safety than was maintained before it was granted or (3) the
exemption becomes inconsistent with the goals and objectives of 49
U.S.C. 31315 and 31136.

    Issued on: June 11, 2010.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2010-15077 Filed 6-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P