[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 60 (Monday, March 30, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16668-16669]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07194]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC15-102-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.
    Description: Application of Florida Power & Light Company for
Authorization Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Request
for Expedited Action.
    Filed Date: 3/23/15.
    Accession Number: 20150323-5346.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/13/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG15-70-000.
    Applicants: CPV Biomass Holdings, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of CPV Biomass Holdings, LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/24/15.
    Accession Number: 20150324-5086.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/15.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-3184-004; ER10-2805-004; ER10-2600-005; ER10-
2564-005; ER10-2289-005; EL15-42-000.
    Applicants: FortisUS Energy Corporation, Central Hudson Gas &
Electric Corp., Tucson Electric Power Company, UNS Electric, Inc.,
UniSource Energy Development Company.
    Description: Response to Order to Show Cause of the Fortis MBR
Sellers.
    Filed Date: 3/23/15.
    Accession Number: 20150323-5342.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/13/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4315-005; ER10-3110-004; ER10-3144-005.
    Applicants: Gila River Power LLC, Union Power Partners, L.P.,
Entegra Power Services LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of the Entegra
Public Utilities.
    Filed Date: 3/24/15.
    Accession Number: 20150324-5159.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1922-001.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Florida, Inc., Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Order No. 1000 Interregional
FRCC & SERTP to be effective 1/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/24/15.
    Accession Number: 20150324-5070.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1928-002.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Order No. 1000
Interregional--SERTP & SCRTP & FRCC to be effective 1/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/24/15.
    Accession Number: 20150324-5069.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1930-002.
    Applicants: Louisville Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Order 1000 Interregional
FRCC and SCRTP to be effective 1/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/24/15.
    Accession Number: 20150324-5092.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1932-001.
    Applicants: Tampa Electric Company.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: OATT Order No. 1000
Interregional Compliance Filing 2015 to be effective 1/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/24/15.
    Accession Number: 20150324-5034.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1935-001.
    Applicants: South Carolina Electric & Gas Company.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Order 1000 Interregional
Compliance filing 3-24-15 to be effective 1/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/24/15.
    Accession Number: 20150324-5057.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1941-002.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Order No. 1000 Second
Interregional Compliance Filing--FRCC & SCRPT Seams to be effective 1/
1/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/24/15.
    Accession Number: 20150324-5074.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2255-001.
    Applicants: Mansfield Power and Gas, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Mansfield
Power and Gas, LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20150318-5204.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2318-005; ER13-2317-005; ER13-2319-005.
    Applicants: All Dams Generation, LLC, Lake Lynn Generation, LLC, PE
Hydro Generation, LLC.
    Description: Notification of Change in Status of the Cube Hydro MBR
Sellers.
    Filed Date: 3/23/15.
    Accession Number: 20150323-5343.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/13/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2864-003.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): Compliance Filing per
2/20/15 Order in Docket No. ER14-2864 to be effective 11/12/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/23/15.
    Accession Number: 20150323-5321.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/13/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-551-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: eTariff filing per 35.19a(b): 2390R2 Westar Energy,
Inc. Refund Report to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 3/24/15.
    Accession Number: 20150324-5077.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-571-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: eTariff filing per 35.19a(b): 2066R3 Westar Energy,
Inc. Refund Report to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 3/24/15.
    Accession Number: 20150324-5067.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-599-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: eTariff filing per 35.19a(b): 2562R2 Kansas Municipal
Energy Authority Refund Report to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 3/24/15.
    Accession Number: 20150324-5071.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1045-000.
    Applicants: Pilot Hill Wind, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to February 13, 2015 Pilot Hill Wind, LLC
tariff filing.
    Filed Date: 3/23/15.
    Accession Number: 20150323-5268.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1196-001.
    Applicants: Nevada Power Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): OATT Energy Imbalance
Market Revision (C & P) to be effective 5/15/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/24/15.
    Accession Number: 20150324-5130.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1359-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-3-
23_TSGT-TSA-377-0.0.0--Filing to be effective 10/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 3/23/15.
    Accession Number: 20150323-5291.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/13/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1360-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Original Service Agreement No. 4109; Queue No. Z1-073 to be effective
2/19/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/23/15.
    Accession Number: 20150323-5305.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/13/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1361-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): First
Revised Service Agreement No. 3831; Queue No. Z1-072 to be effective 2/
19/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/23/15.
    Accession Number: 20150323-5320.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/13/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1362-000.
    Applicants: Galt Power, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): MBR
Tariff Update to be effective 3/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/24/15.
    Accession Number: 20150324-5045.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1363-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-
03-24_SA 2698 Termination of OTP-Courtenay Wind Farm GIA (J262/J263) to
be effective 5/24/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/24/15.
    Accession Number: 20150324-5046.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1364-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-
03-24_SA 768. Bill of Sale for ATC-UPPCo Agreement to be effective 5/
24/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/24/15.
    Accession Number: 20150324-5079.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1365-000.
    Applicants: Morris Cogeneration, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Reactive Power Rate Schedule to be effective 5/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/24/15.
    Accession Number: 20150324-5124.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1366-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-
03-24_SA 2761. ATC-UPPCo Common Facilities Agreement to be effective 5/
24/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/24/15.
    Accession Number: 20150324-5133.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1367-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-
03-24_SA 768. Notice of Termination of Bill of Sale (ATC-UPPCo) to be
effective 5/24/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/24/15.
    Accession Number: 20150324-5137.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying
facility filings:

    Docket Numbers: QF15-549-000.
    Applicants: Clark University.
    Description: Form 556 of Clark University under QF15-549.
    Filed Date: 3/12/15.
    Accession Number: 20150312-5166.
    Comments Due: None Applicable.

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

    Dated: March 24, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-07194 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 168 (Friday, August 29, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51492-51497]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20502]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0297; FRL-9911-57]

Kasugamycin; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of
kasugamycin in or on fruit, pome. Arysta LifeScience North America, LLC
(Arysta LifeScience), requested a number of tolerances under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) which are addressed in
this document.

DATES: This regulation is effective August 29, 2014. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before October 28, 2014,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0297, 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: Lois Rossi, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers

determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected
entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/
text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab02.tpl. To
access the OCSPP test guidelines referenced in this document
electronically, please go to http://www.epa.gov/ocspp and select ``Test
Methods and Guidelines.''

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0297 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 28, 2014. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any 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-2010-0297, 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 May 19, 2010 (75 FR 28009) (FRL-8823-2),
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 0F7689)
by Arysta LifeScience North America, LLC, 15401 Weston Parkway, Cary,
NC 27513. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.614 be amended by
establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide kasugamycin, in
or on fruiting vegetables (crop group 8) at 0.15 parts per million
(ppm), pome fruit (crop group 11) at 0.25 ppm, and walnuts at 0.04 ppm.
That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Arysta
LifeScience, 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
modified the proposed tolerance levels and the crops for which
tolerances will be established. The reasons for these changes are
explained in Unit IV.C. The tolerance in imported fruiting vegetables,
crop group 8 is not being removed or revised at this time. This
regulation additionally deletes the time-limited tolerance for apple,
as the tolerance will be superseded by permanent tolerances in the
various pome fruits.

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 kasugamycin on pome
commodities, including exposure resulting from the tolerances
established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks
associated with kasugamycin 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.
    Kasugamycin is a member of the aminoglycoside family of
antibiotics, which also includes streptomycin and gentamicin. These
agents inhibit bacterial protein synthesis by binding to the 30S
subunit of the bacterial ribosome. Their penetration through the cell
membrane of the bacterium depends partly on oxygen-dependent active
transport by a polyamine carrier system that seems to be absent in
mammalian systems.
    Kasugamycin exhibits low acute toxicity, being only a mild dermal
and ocular irritant. The major effects observed across species in
multiple-dose studies were decreased body weights and body weight
gains. The primary target organs identified for kasugamycin were the
testes and kidney in the rat and mouse. However, these effects were
only seen at higher dose levels, generally at the highest dose tested
(HDT). In the combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study in rats,
the basis for the lowest-observed-adverse-effect level (LOAEL) was an
increased incidence and severity of testicular tubular atrophy,
observed during the histopathologic examinations at the end of the 2-
year dosing period, as well as at 6 months, and 1 year. Testicular
degeneration and atrophy

were observed in adult F1 males in the rat reproductive toxicity study
at the highest dose. Testicular tubular dilatation and degeneration
were observed in the mouse subchronic study, but at a dose that
exceeded the limit dose; the mouse carcinogenicity study tested at much
lower doses, and these effects were not observed. In the dog chronic
toxicity study, testicular inflammation was reported at the high dose,
but was not accompanied by atrophic or degenerative changes, and was
not considered a treatment-related adverse effect.
    Kidney toxicity is often associated with exposure to aminoglycoside
antibiotics, and the metabolism study indicated higher levels of
radioactivity in the kidneys than other tissues. In male F1 rats in the
reproductive toxicity study, dilatation of the kidney, and an increased
incidence of chronic progressive nephropathy were observed. In the
subchronic rat study, an increased incidence of eosinophilic bodies
(graded slight for severity) in the renal proximal tubular cells was
reported in males at several dose levels. These effects were considered
treatment related, but not adverse due to their low severity grade, and
lack of associated findings. However, in female rats, increased
epithelial cells in the urinary sediment, along with decreased urine pH
(decreased pH was also seen in males), were observed at the high dose,
and considered evidence of possible kidney toxicity. Lipofuscin
deposition (slight) was observed in the rat combined chronic toxicity/
carcinogenicity study, but was not considered adverse due to the lack
of other related findings; this study tested up to the no-observed-
adverse-effect level (NOAEL) of the subchronic study. In the mouse,
following subchronic exposure, minimal to severe basophilia/hyperplasia
in the renal pars recta in females was observed. No renal effects were
reported in the mouse carcinogenicity study at lower doses, or in the
dog subchronic or chronic studies.
    There was no evidence that exposure to kasugamycin results in
neurotoxicity, and a developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) study is not
required. Also, there was no evidence of immune system effects based on
the review of a submitted immunotoxicity study. Although a 28-day rat
inhalation toxicity study was not submitted, EPA has determined that it
is not required based on available hazard and exposure information.
    The database is complete with respect to pre- and postnatal
toxicity, and shows no evidence of increased qualitative or
quantitative susceptibility in the offspring, or in the developing
fetus. There was no evidence of carcinogenicity in male and female
mice, nor in male and female rats at doses that were adequate to assess
the carcinogenic potential of kasugamycin. There was no evidence of
mutagenicity. Based on the overall weight of the evidence, kasugamycin
is classified as ``not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.''
    Although antimicrobial drug residues present in or on food may
cause adverse effects on the ecology of the intestinal microflora of
consumers, the Agency does not believe this is a concern for
kasugamycin because of the use pattern (application occurring prior to
fruit development) and low residue detection in field trials.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by kasugamycin as well as the NOAEL and the
LOAEL from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document ``Kasugamycin. Human Health Risk
Assessment for the Proposed Use of the Fungicide on Fruiting
Vegetables, Pome Fruits, and Walnuts'' at pp. 15-21 in docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0297.

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 (LOC) 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 NOAEL and the LOAEL are identified.
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 kasugamycin used for human risk assessment is shown in
Table 1 of this unit.

        Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Kasugamycin Relevant to FFDCA Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Study and
        Exposure scenario         Point of departure    Uncertainty and    RfD, PAD, LOC for     toxicological
                                                            FQPA SF         risk assessment         effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (all populations).    An appropriate dose and endpoint for this risk assessment scenario was not
                                        identified, based on a lack of single-dose effects in the database.
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary (all populations  NOAEL = 11 mg/kg/   UFA = 10X           Chronic RfD = 0.11  Combined chronic
 including infants and children,   day.               UFH = 10X.........   mg/kg/day.          toxicity/
 and females age 13 to 49).                           FQPA SF = 1X......  cPAD = 0.11 mg/kg/   carcinogenicity
                                                                           day.                study in the rat.
                                                                                LOAEL = 116 mg/kg/
                                                                                day, based on
                                                                                testicular
                                                                                atrophy and
                                                                                softening.
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (oral, dermal,                      Classification: ``Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.''
 inhalation).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point of Departure = a data point or estimated point derived from observed dose-response data, which is used to
  mark the beginning of extrapolation to determine risk associated with lower environmentally relevant human
  exposures. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential
  variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies). FQPA SF = Food Quality
  Protection Act Safety Factor. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect level. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect
  level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. LOC = level of concern.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to kasugamycin, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing kasugamycin tolerances in 40 CFR
180.614. EPA assessed dietary exposures from kasugamycin 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 kasugamycin; 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 United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996 and the 1998 Nationwide
Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). An unrefined
chronic aggregate dietary (food and drinking water) exposure and risk
assessment was conducted using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model
software with the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-
FCIDTM), Version 2.03. The residue inputs into the dietary
model were the recommended tolerance level residues and default
processing factors were used, with the exception of the apple juice
processing factor, for which the 1.5X data-derived processing factor
was used. EPA assumed 100% crop treated (PCT) for all proposed uses.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that kasugamycin does not pose a cancer risk to humans.
Therefore, a quantitative dietary exposure assessment for the purpose
of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA did not use
anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the dietary assessment
for kasugamycin. Tolerance level residues and/or 100 PCT 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 kasugamycin in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of kasugamycin. 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 Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS) the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs)
of kasugamycin for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are
estimated to be 0.001178 ppm for surface water. EDWCs of kasugamycin
for ground water were estimated to be 0.000116 ppm via the Screening
Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) system. Modeled estimates of
drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary
exposure model. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water
concentration of value 0.001178 ppm 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).
    Kasugamycin 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
kasugamycin to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other
substances, and kasugamycin does not appear to produce a toxic
metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that kasugamycin 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 Food Quality
Protection Act Safety Factor (FQPA 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 was no evidence of
increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibility in rat or rabbit
developmental toxicity studies, or in the rat reproductive study. No
developmental effects were seen in the rat developmental study, whereas
maternal toxicity (decreased body weight gain, food consumption, and
feed efficiency) was observed at the highest dose. Although no maternal
or developmental toxicity was observed in the main rabbit developmental
toxicity study, in the dose range-finding study, maternal weight loss,
reduced food consumption during dosing, and abortions (occurring at GD
18 or later) were observed at higher doses. Fetal weight was decreased
at the maternally toxic dose but, due to abortions or maternal death,
was not evaluated at the higher doses. In the rat reproductive toxicity
study, parental toxicity included decreased parental body weight/weight
gain at the mid and high doses. No offspring toxicity was observed.
Reproductive toxicity was observed only at the highest dose tested
(above the parental LOAEL), with testicular atrophy, decreased
fertility and fecundity in the F1 parents for both litters, and an
increased pre-coital interval during the mating period for the F2b
litter.
    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 for the following reasons:
    i. The toxicity database for kasugamycin is complete, including rat
acute and subchronic neurotoxicity screening studies and a mouse
immunotoxicity study. Based on the lack of observed neurotoxicity, a
DNT study is not required. Furthermore, a 28-day inhalation study is
not required based on the available hazard and exposure information and
proposed and existing uses for kasugamycin.
    ii. There is no evidence of increased quantitative or qualitative
pre- and/or postnatal susceptibility observed in developmental toxicity
studies in the rat and rabbit, or in a 2-generation reproduction study
in the rat.

    iii. The exposure assessment for food and drinking water will not
underestimate potential dietary exposure to kasugamycin. There are no
proposed or existing residential uses for kasugamycin.

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,
kasugamycin 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
kasugamycin from food and water are below HED's LOC of 100% of the cPAD
for all population subgroups. The most highly exposed population
subgroup, children 1-2 years old, had a risk estimate of 1.7% cPAD.
There are no residential uses for kasugamycin to aggregate with chronic
exposure to kasugamycin from food and water.
    3. Short- and intermediate-term risk. Short- and intermediate-term
aggregate exposures take into account short- and intermediate-term
residential exposures plus chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background exposure level). Because there are no
residential uses for kasugamycin, kasugamycin is not expected to pose a
short- or intermediate-term risk.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, kasugamycin is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
    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 kasugamycin residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology high-performance liquid
chromatography with ultraviolet detection (HPLC/UV) 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. The Codex has not
established a MRL for kasugamycin.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    As EPA explained in its latest crop group rulemaking published in
the Federal Register of August 22, 2012 (77 FR 50617) (FRL-9354-3), EPA
will attempt to conform petitions seeking tolerances for crop groups to
the newer established crop groups, rather than establish new tolerances
under the pre-existing crop groups, as part of its effort to eventually
convert tolerances for any pre-existing crop group to tolerances with
coverage under the revised crop group. Therefore, although the
petitioner requested tolerances for crop group 11 (pome fruit), EPA
evaluated tolerances for crop group 11-10 (pome fruit).
    Based on the available residue data and using the Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) tolerance calculation
procedure, EPA is establishing a tolerance of 0.20 ppm for residues of
kasugamycin in or on fruit, pome (crop group 11-10).
    EPA also is not establishing tolerances for walnuts and fruiting
vegetables because the petitioner withdrew its tolerance requests for
those commodities.
    The Agency has revised the tolerance expression in 40 CFR
180.614(a) to clarify:
    1. That, as provided in FFDCA section 408(a)(3), the tolerance
covers metabolites and degradates of kasugamycin not specifically
mentioned.
    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 kasugamycin,
in or on pome fruits (crop group 11-10) at 0.20 ppm. This regulation
additionally deletes the time-limited tolerance for apple, as the
tolerance will be superseded by permanent tolerances in the various
pome fruits.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule 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 final rule has
been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule
is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain
any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.

    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or Tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (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: August 20, 2014.
Marty Monell,
Acting Director, 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. Revise Sec.  180.614 to read as follows:

Sec.  180.614  Kasugamycin; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of
kasugamycin, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the
commodities listed in the following table. Compliance with the
tolerance levels specified is to be determined by measuring only
kasugamycin (3-O-[2-amino-4-[(carboxyimino-methyl)amino]-2,3,4,6-
tetradeoxy-[alpha]-D-arabino-hexopyranosyl]-D-chiro-inositol) in or on
the commodity.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fruit, pome, group 11-10...................................         0.20
Vegetable, fruiting, group 8 \1\...........................         0.04
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There is no U.S. registration as of September 1, 2005.

    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]
    (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. [Reserved]
    (d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 2014-20502 Filed 8-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 134 (Friday, July 12, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 41943]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16716]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4124-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2013-0001]

Arkansas; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Arkansas (FEMA-4124-DR), dated June 25, 2013,
and related determinations.

DATES:  Effective Date: June 25, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, 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, in a letter
dated June 25, 2013, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Arkansas resulting from severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
during the period May 30 to June 3, 2013, is of sufficient severity
and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare
that such a major disaster exists in the State of Arkansas.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Kenneth K. Suiso, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Arkansas have been designated
as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Cleburne, Cross, Independence, Montgomery, Poinsett, Polk,
Scott, Searcy, Stone, Van Buren, and Woodruff Counties for Public
Assistance.
    All counties within the State of Arkansas are eligible to apply
for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

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

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2013-16716 Filed 7-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 98 (Friday, May 20, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29169-29170]
[FR Doc No: 2011-12366]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 390

[Docket No. FMCSA-2005-23315]
RIN 2126-AB37

Requirements for Intermodal Equipment Providers and for Motor
Carriers and Drivers Operating Intermodal Equipment

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

ACTION: Final rule; partial extension of compliance date.

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

SUMMARY: The FMCSA extends until June 30, 2012, the compliance date of
the requirement for drivers and motor carriers to prepare a driver-
vehicle inspection report (DVIR) on an item of intermodal equipment
(IME) when no damage, defects, or deficiencies are discovered by, or
reported to, the driver (hereafter ``no-defect DVIR''). The previous
compliance date was June 30, 2011, as a result of the Agency's August
20, 2010, amended final rule which extended the compliance date of the
same provision of the December 17, 2008, final rule concerning
maintenance responsibilities for IME. As a result of this action,
drivers and carriers are not required to prepare no-defect DVIRs until
June 30, 2012. This action is being taken to provide the Agency with
sufficient time to address, through a notice-and-comment rulemaking
proceeding, a petition to rescind the requirement for no-defect DVIRs.
The Agency emphasizes that all requirements concerning drivers'
preparation of DVIRs to report damage, defects, or deficiencies to
intermodal equipment providers (IEPs) remain in effect, as well as the
requirements for IEPs to take appropriate action in addressing the
safety issues identified by such reports.

DATES: Compliance date: As of May 20, 2011, the compliance date for the
requirement in Sec.  390.42(b) for drivers and motor carriers to
prepare a DVIR on an item of IME if no damage, defects, or deficiencies
are discovered by, or reported to, the driver, is extended until June
30, 2012.

ADDRESSES:
    Public Access to the Docket: You may view, print, and download this
final rule and all related documents and background material on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, using the Docket ID Number FMCSA-2005-
23315. These documents can also be examined and copied for a fee at the
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building-
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah M. Freund, Vehicle and
Roadside Operations Division, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and
Operations (MC-PSV), Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Legal Basis

    The legal basis of this and all previous notices dealing with the
implementation of section 4118 of SAFETEA-LU was set forth in the final
rule of December 17, 2008.

Background

    On December 17, 2008, FMCSA published a final rule (73 FR 76794)
adopting regulations to implement section 4118 of the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy
for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1729, August
10, 2005). The regulations require intermodal equipment providers
(IEPs) to register and file with FMCSA an Intermodal Equipment Provider
Identification Report (Form MCS-150C); establish a systematic
inspection, repair, and maintenance program to ensure the safe
operating condition of each intermodal chassis; maintain documentation
of their maintenance program; and provide a means to effectively
respond to driver and motor carrier reports about intermodal chassis
mechanical defects and deficiencies. These regulations for the first
time made IEPs subject to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs), and called for shared safety responsibility among IEPs, motor
carriers, and drivers. The December 2008 final rule required IEPs to
comply with (1) the requirements for establishing systematic
inspection, repair, and maintenance programs, recordkeeping systems,
and for submitting Form MCS-150C by December 17, 2009, and (2) the
requirement to mark their intermodal chassis with a USDOT
identification number by December 17, 2010.
    On December 29, 2009, FMCSA amended the December 2008 final rule
to: (1) Create an additional marking option for identifying the IEP
responsible for the inspection, repair, and maintenance of items of
IME; (2) clarify regulatory text and correct an inadvertent error; and
(3) extend the deadline for IEPs, motor carriers, and drivers operating
IME to comply with certain provisions pertaining to driver-vehicle
inspections (74 FR 68703).

Petition for Rulemaking

    On March 31, 2010, the Ocean Carrier Equipment Management
Association and the Institute of International Container Lessors
submitted a joint petition to FMCSA requesting the rescission of the
provision in Sec.  390.42(b) of the FMCSRs that requires drivers or
motor carriers to prepare and transmit a no-defect DVIR to the IEP at
the time the IME is returned to the IEP. The petitioners contend that
the preparation and transmittal of these no-defect DVIRs impose an
undue burden on drivers, motor carriers, IEPs, and intermodal
facilities nationwide.
    The Administrator granted the petition on July 30, 2010, based on
the Agency's preliminary determination that the petition has merit and
that a notice-and-comment rulemaking proceeding should be initiated to
provide all interested parties the opportunity to comment on the
matter. The Agency then extended the compliance date for no-defect
DVIRs to June 30, 2011 (75 FR 51419, August 20, 2010). A copy of the
petition and the Administrator's decision has been placed in the
docket.
    FMCSA plans to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking to eliminate
the portion of Sec.  390.42(b) that requires drivers or motor carriers
to prepare and transmit no-defect DVIRs. At that time, all interested
parties would have the opportunity to submit comments concerning the
issue. The Agency would then consider the public comments prior to any
decision whether to rescind the no-defect DVIR requirement.
    While the Agency is conducting this rulemaking, FMCSA extends until
June 30, 2012, the compliance date for the requirement in Sec.
390.42(b) for drivers and motor carriers to prepare a DVIR on an item
of IME when no damage,

defects, or deficiencies are discovered by, or reported to, the driver.

    Issued on: May 13, 2011.
William Bronrott,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-12366 Filed 5-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 87 (Friday, May 5, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29005-29007]
[FR Doc No: 2023-09575]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2023-0183]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; River Rouge, Detroit, MI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to modify the operations of all
movable bridges over the River Rouge, Detroit, MI to improve
communications and establish winter hours. We invite your comments on
this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and relate material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before July 5, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2023-0183 using Federal Decision-Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary final rule, call or email Mr. Lee D. Soule, Bridge Management
Specialist, Ninth Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
IGLD85 International Great Lakes Datum of 1985
LWD Low Water Datum based on IGLD85
OMB Office of Management and Budget
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    The River Rouge is a 127-mile river that winds through the Detroit
metropolitan area of southeastern Michigan. The river flows into the
Detroit River at Zug Island, which is the boundary between the cities
of River Rouge and Detroit.
    The River Rouge is highly polluted and was designated as a Great
Lakes Area of Concern (AOC) under the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement in 1987. The designated AOC covers the entire River Rouge
watershed, which touches 48 communities. The River Rouge watershed
drains into the Detroit River, which serves as a maritime border
between the United States and Canada.
    In the 1970s, the lower three miles of the river were channelized,
widened, and dredged to allow freighter access to Ford's River Rouge
Plant inland factory facilities. The plant was built between 1915 and
1927. It was the first manufacturing facility for automobiles that
included within the plant virtually everything needed to produce the
cars: blast furnaces, an open-hearth mill, a steel rolling mill, a
glass plant, a huge power plant, and an assembly line. During the
1930s, some 100,000 workers were employed here. The plant has been
designated as a National Historic Landmark and is still in use.
    Domestic and foreign freighters continue to use the lower three
miles of the River Rouge for trade. A steel mill near the head of
navigation receives bulk shipments regularly; other industries using
the river include a petroleum refinery, cement dock, and stone dock.
Other smaller docks are located along the banks of the river. A dormant
steel mill can be found on Zug Island at the mouth of the river.
    Recreational vessels are welcome to use the River Rouge, but there
is little infrastructure to support recreational vessels in this
waterway.
    Thirteen bridges cross the Rouge River between the river mouth and
river mile 2.75; eight of these bridges are movable. The controlling
fixed structure is the Fisher Freeway I-75 Bridge, mile 1.85, that
provides a horizontal clearance of 230-feet and a vertical clearance of
100-feet above LWD.
    The National Steel Cooperation Railroad Bridge, mile 0.40, is a
single leaf bascule bridge that provides horizontal clearance of 125-
feet and a vertical clearance of 6-feet in the closed and an unlimited
clearance above LWD.
    The West Jefferson Avenue Bridge, mile 1.10, is a double leaf
bascule Bridge that provides horizontal clearance of 125-feet and a
vertical clearance of 9-feet in the closed and an unlimited clearance
in the open position above LWD.
    The Conrail Bridge, mile 1.48, is a single leaf bascule bridge that
provides horizontal clearance of 123-feet and a vertical clearance of
8-feet in the closed

and an unlimited clearance in the open position above LWD. It is
remotely operated.
    The Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge, mile 1.87, is a single leaf
bascule Bridge that provides horizontal clearance of 125-feet and a
vertical clearance of 8-feet in the closed and an unlimited clearance
in the open position above LWD.
    The Fort Street Bridge, mile 2.20, is a single leaf bascule Bridge
that provides horizontal clearance of 118-feet and a vertical clearance
of 9-feet in the closed and an unlimited clearance in the open position
above LWD.
    The main channel of the river was the result of Mr. Henry Ford
needing to straighten the entrance of the River Rouge to accommodate
deliveries of raw materials to his automotive plant. This main channel,
formally known as the short cut channel, formed Zug Island at the mouth
of the river. The original channel that curves around the north and
west sides of Zug Island is know known as the old channel and is
crossed by two movable bridges.
    The Delray Connecting Railroad Bridge, mile 0.34, is a single leaf
bascule Bridge that provides horizontal clearance of 120-feet and a
vertical clearance of 7-feet in the closed and an unlimited clearance
in the open position above LWD.
    The Delray Connecting Railroad Bridge, mile 0.80, is a swing Bridge
that provides horizontal clearance of 102-feet and a vertical clearance
of 7-feet in the closed and an unlimited clearance in the open position
above LWD.
    Large freighters will not enter the River Rouge without
communicating their intentions to the drawbridges they need to pass
through because the river has several bends and, due to the large
drainage area, river currents in the River Rouge can vary from mild to
wild in a short amount of time. This deviation increases the difficulty
for large vessels to maintain position near bridges.
    There are no alternate routes for vessels to avoid going through
the bridges listed here.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard has received an increase in delay reports for the
River Rouge caused by a failure in communications between bridgetenders
and mariners. We propose to require all bridges to operate and maintain
a radiotelephone.
    Because most of the delays have been at rail bridges, we propose to
require the Conrail Bridge, mile 1.48 and the Norfolk Southern Railroad
Bridge to maintain and operate a telephone. Both bridges currently
provide telephone numbers to mariners, as requested, and this proposed
rule would not require the installment of any new equipment.
    The regulations for the National Steel Cooperation Railroad Bridge,
mile 0.40, the Delray Connecting Railroad Bridge, mile 0.34, and the
Delray Connecting Railroad Bridge, mile 0.80 would remain as written.
    Most of the rivers in the Great Lakes have winter hours that allow
bridge owners to receive a 12-hour advance notice for openings during
times when ice hinders navigation or during reduced river traffic. We
asked the Lake Carriers Association, the Passenger Vessel Association,
and the Chamber of Marine Commerce in Canada for informal comments and
did not receive any.
    We are proposing starting winter hours on January 1 through March
31 for all bridges crossing the River Rouge. Each bridge would be
required to provide the Coast Guard District Bridge office with
appropriate phone number each fall to advertise to the mariners to
provide the 12-hour advance notice.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on these statutes and Executive Orders.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This NPRM has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM
has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that
vessels can still transit the bridge given advanced notice.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A
above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact
on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this proposed rule has

implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this
proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01, Rev.1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning Policy COMDTINST 5090.1
(series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). The
Coast Guard has determined that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule promulgates the
operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Normally such
actions are categorically excluded from further review, under paragraph
L49, of Chapter 3, Table3-1 of the U.S. Coast Guard Environmental
Planning Implementation Procedures.
    Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum
for the Record are required for this rule. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through
the Federal Decision-Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. To
do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG- 2023-0183 in the
search box and click ``Search.'' Next, look for this document in the
Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment
option. If your material cannot be submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.
    Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this
proposed rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as
described in the previous paragraph, and then select ``Supporting &
Related Material'' in the Document Type column. Public comments will
also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following
instructions on the https://www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked
Questions web page. We review all comments received, but we will only
post comments that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may
choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that
we receive. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted, or a
final rule is published of any posting or updates to the docket.
    We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal information you have
provided. For more about privacy and submissions in response to this
document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226,
March 11, 2020).

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3

0
2. Amend Sec.  117.645 River Rouge by revising paragraph (d) and adding
paragraphs (e) through (h) to read as follows:

Sec.  117.645  River Rouge.

* * * * *
    (d) The draw of the West Jefferson Avenue Bridge, mile 1.10, is
required to operate a radiotelephone, and shall open on signal except
from January 1 through March 31 when the bridge shall open on signal if
provided a 12-hour advance notice.
    (e) The draw of the Conrail Bridge, mile 1.48, is remotely
operated, is required to operate a radiotelephone and telephone, and
shall open on signal except from January 1 through March 31 when the
bridge shall open on signal if provided a 12-hour advance notice.
    (f) The draw of the Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge, mile 1.87, is
required to operate a radiotelephone and telephone, and shall open on
signal except from January 1 through March 31 when the bridge shall
open on signal if provided a 12-hour advance notice.
    (g) The draw of the Fort Street Bridge, mile 2.20, is required to
operate a radiotelephone, and shall open on signal except from January
1 through March 31 when the bridge shall open on signal if provided a
12-hour advance notice.
    (h) The draw of the Dix Avenue Bridge, mile 2.73, is remotely
operated, is required to operate a radiotelephone, and shall open on
signal except from January 1 through March 31 when the bridge shall
open on signal if provided a 12-hour advance notice.

    Dated: May 1, 2023.
E.J. Doucette,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, Ninth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2023-09575 Filed 5-4-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 177 (Monday, September 14, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55032-55035]
[FR Doc No: 2015-23073]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[EPA-R06-2015-0070 RCRA; FRL-9933-79-Region 6]

Louisiana: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste
Management Program Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Louisiana has applied to the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) for final authorization of the changes to its hazardous waste
program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The
EPA has determined that these changes satisfy all requirements needed
to qualify for final authorization, and is authorizing the State's
changes through this direct final action. The EPA is publishing this
rule to authorize the changes without a prior proposal because we
believe this action is not controversial and do not expect comments
that oppose it. Unless we receive written comments which oppose this
authorization during the comment period, the decision to authorize
Louisiana's changes to its hazardous waste program will take effect. If
we receive comments that oppose this action, we will publish a document
in the Federal Register withdrawing this rule before it takes effect,
and a separate document in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register will serve as a proposal to authorize the changes.

DATES: This final authorization will become effective on November 13,
2015 unless the EPA receives adverse written comment by October 14,
2015. If the EPA receives such comment, it will publish a timely
withdrawal of this direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform
the public that this authorization will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit any comments identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-
RCRA-2015-0070, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail: Alima Patterson, Region 6, Regional Authorization
Coordinator, State/Tribal Oversight Section (6PD-O), Multimedia
Planning and Permitting Division, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Dallas Texas 75202-2733.
    4. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to Alima
Patterson, Region 6, Regional Authorization Coordinator, State/Tribal
Oversight Section (6PD-O), Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division,
EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
    Instructions: Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected through regulations.gov, or email. Direct your
comment to Docket No. EPA-R06-RCRA-2015-0070. The Federal
regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means
the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to the EPA without going through regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the

comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. You can view and
copy Louisiana's application and associated publicly available
materials from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday at the
following locations: Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, 602
N. Fifth Street, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70884-2178, phone number (225)
219-3559 and EPA, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733,
phone number<PHONE_NUMBER>. Interested persons wanting to examine
these documents should make an appointment with the office at least two
weeks in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alima Patterson, Region 6, Regional
Authorization Coordinator, State/Tribal Oversight Section (6PD-O),
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733,<PHONE_NUMBER>) and Email address
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Why are revisions to State programs necessary?

    States which have received final authorization from the EPA under
RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous
waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less
stringent than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes,
States must change their programs and ask the EPA to authorize the
changes. Changes to State programs may be necessary when Federal or
State statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain
other changes occur.
    Most commonly, States must change their programs because of changes
to the EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts
124, 260 through 268, 270, 273, and 279.

B. What decisions have we made in this rule?

    We conclude that Louisiana's application to revise its authorized
program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements
established by RCRA. Therefore, we grant Louisiana final authorization
to operate its hazardous waste program with the changes described in
the authorization application. Louisiana has responsibility for
permitting treatment, storage, and disposal facilities within its
borders (except in Indian Country) and for carrying out the aspects of
the RCRA program described in its revised program application, subject
to the limitations of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
(HSWA). New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal
regulations that the EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA take
effect in authorized States before they are authorized for the
requirements. Thus, the EPA will implement those requirements and
prohibitions in Louisiana including issuing permits, until the State is
granted authorization to do so.

C. What is the effect of today's authorization decision?

    The effect of this decision is that a facility in Louisiana subject
to RCRA will now have to comply with the authorized State requirements
instead of the equivalent Federal requirements in order to comply with
RCRA. Louisiana has enforcement responsibilities under its State
hazardous waste program for violations of such program, but the EPA
retains its authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003,
which include, among others, authority to:
     Do inspections, and require monitoring, tests, analyses,
or reports;
     enforce RCRA requirements and suspend or revoke permits
and
     take enforcement actions after notice to and consultation
with the State.
    This action does not impose additional requirements on the
regulated community because the regulations for which Louisiana is
being authorized by today's action are already effective under State
law, and are not changed by today's action.

D. Why wasn't there a proposed rule before today's rule?

    The EPA did not publish a proposal before today's rule because we
view this as a routine program change and do not expect comments that
oppose this approval. We are providing an opportunity for public
comment now. In addition to this rule, in the proposed rules section of
today's Federal Register we are publishing a separate document that
proposes to authorize the State program changes.

E. What happens if the EPA receives comments that oppose this action?

    If the EPA receives comments that oppose this authorization, we
will withdraw this rule by publishing a document in the Federal
Register before the rule becomes effective. The EPA will base any
further decision on the authorization of the State program changes on
the proposal mentioned in the previous paragraph. We will then address
all public comments in a later final rule. You may not have another
opportunity to comment. If you want to comment on this authorization,
you must do so at this time. If we receive comments that oppose only
the authorization of a particular change to the State hazardous waste
program, we will withdraw only that part of this rule, but the
authorization of the program changes that the comments do not oppose
will become effective on the date specified above. The Federal Register
withdrawal document will specify which part of the authorization will
become effective, and which part is being withdrawn.

F. For what has Louisiana previously been authorized?

    The State of Louisiana initially received final authorization on
February 7, 1985, (50 FR 3348), to implement its base Hazardous Waste
Management Program. We granted authorization for changes to their
program on November 28, 1989 (54 FR 48889) effective January 29, 1990;
August 26, 1991 (56 FR 41958), as corrected October 15, 1991 (56 FR
51762) effective October 25, 1991; November 7, 1994 (59 FR 55368)
effective January 23, 1995 (Note: on January 23, 1995 (60 FR 4380), the
EPA responded to public adverse comments and affirmed the effective
date for the November 7, 1994 final rule. Then on April 11, 1995 (60 FR
18360), the EPA also made administrative corrections for the January
23, 1995 Federal Register document); December 23, 1994 (59 FR 66200)
effective March 8, 1995; October 17, 1995 (60 FR 53704) effective
January 2, 1996; March 28, 1996 (61 FR 13777) effective June 11, 1996;
December 29, 1997 (62 FR 67572) effective March 16, 1998; October 23,
1998 (63 FR 56830) effective December 22, 1998; August 25, 1999 (64 FR
46302) effective October 25, 1999; September 2, 1999 (64 FR 48099)
effective November 1, 1999; February 28, 2000 (65 FR 10411) effective
April 28, 2000; January 2, 2001 (66 FR 23) effective March 5, 2001;
December 9, 2003 (68 FR 68526) effective February 9, 2004; June 10,
2005 (70 FR 33852) effective August 9, 2005; November 13, 2006 (71 FR
66116) effective January 12,

2007; August 16, 2007 (72 FR 45905) effective October 15, 2007; May 20,
2009 (74 FR 23645) effective July 20, 2009; June 24, 2011(76 FR 122)
effective August 23, 2011; and June 28, 2012 (77 FR 38530) effective
August 27, 2012. On October 31, 2014, Louisiana applied for approval of
its program revisions for specific rules in RCRA Clusters XXI, XXII and
XXIII, in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21(b)(3).
    Since 1979 through the Environmental Affairs Act, Act 449 enabled
the Office of Environmental Affairs within the Louisiana Department of
Natural Resources, as well as, the Environmental Control Commission to
conduct an effective program designed to regulate those who generate,
transport, treat, store, dispose or recycle hazardous waste. During the
1983 Regular Session of the Louisiana Legislature, Act 97 was adopted,
which amended and reenacted La. R. S. 30:1051 et seq. as the
Environmental Quality Act, renaming the Environmental Affairs Act (Act
1938 of 1979). This Act created Louisiana Department of Environmental
Quality (LDEQ), including provisions for new offices within this new
Department of Environmental Quality. Act 97 also transferred the duties
and responsibilities previously delegated to the Department of Natural
Resources, Office of Environmental Affairs, to the new Department. The
LDEQ has lead agency jurisdictional authority for administering the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C program in
Louisiana. Also, the LDEQ is designated to facilitate communication
between the EPA and the State. During the 1999 Regular Session of
Louisiana Legislature, Act 303 revised the La. R. S. 30:2011 et seq.,
allowing LDEQ to reengineer the Department to perform more efficiently
and to meet its strategic goals.

G. What changes are we authorizing with today's action?

    On October 31, 2014, Louisiana submitted a final complete program
revision application, seeking authorization of their changes in
accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. We now make an immediate final decision,
subject to receipt of written comments that oppose this action, that
Louisiana's hazardous waste program revision satisfies all of the
requirements necessary to qualify for Final authorization. Therefore,
we grant the State of Louisiana Final authorization for the following
changes: The State of Louisiana's program revisions consist of
regulations which specifically govern Revision Checklists 227, 228, and
229 from RCRA Clusters XXI, XXII, XXIII, respectively, as documented in
this Federal Register:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Federal Register
    Description of Federal        date and page
     requirement  (include         (and/or RCRA       Analogous State
   checklist #, if relevant)        statutory            authority
                                    authority)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Revision of the Land         76 FR 34147-       Environmental
 Disposal Treatment Standards    34157, June 13,    Regulatory Code,
 for Carbamate Wastes.           2011.              Louisiana Department
 (Checklist 227).                                   of Environmental
                                                    Quality, ERC Title
                                                    33, Part V.
                                                    Hazardous Waste and
                                                    Hazardous Materials,
                                                    2013 edition.
                                                    Section 2299
                                                    Appendix Table 2,
                                                    Treatment Standards
                                                    for Hazardous Waste,
                                                    and Table 7,
                                                    Universal Treatment
                                                    Standards, effective
                                                    September 20, 2013.
2. Hazardous Waste Technical    77 FR 22229-22232  Environmental
 Corrections and                 April 13, 2012.    Regulatory Code,
 Clarifications Rule.                               Louisiana Department
 (Checklist 228).                                   of Environmental
                                                    Quality, ERC Title
                                                    33, Part V.
                                                    Hazardous Waste and
                                                    Hazardous Materials,
                                                    2010 edition and the
                                                    March 2012
                                                    Supplement. Sections
                                                    4901.C.Table 2,
                                                    Hazardous Wastes
                                                    from Specific
                                                    Sources, and
                                                    4139.B.2, effective
                                                    March 20, 2012.
3. Conditional Exclusions for   78 FR 46448-46485  Environmental
 Solvent Contaminated Wipes.     July 31, 2013.     Regulatory Code,
 (Checklist 229).                                   Louisiana Department
                                                    of Environmental
                                                    Quality, ERC Title
                                                    33, Part V.
                                                    Hazardous Waste and
                                                    Hazardous Materials,
                                                    2013 edition and the
                                                    July 2014
                                                    Supplement. Sections
                                                    109 No Free Liquids,
                                                    109.Solvent
                                                    Contaminated wipe,
                                                    109.Wipe, 105.D.1.w,
                                                    and 105.D.2.q,
                                                    effective July 20,
                                                    2014.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Where are the revised State rules different from the Federal Rules?

    In this authorization of the State of Louisiana program revisions
for the RCRA Cluster XXI, XXII, and XXIII rules, there are no
provisions that are more stringent or broader in scope.

I. Who handles permits after the authorization takes effect?

    Louisiana will issue permits for all the provisions for which it is
authorized and will administer the permits it issues. The EPA will
continue to administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits or portions of
permits which we issued prior to the effective date of this
authorization. We will not issue any more new permits or new portions
of permits for the provisions listed in the Table in this document
after the effective date of this authorization. The EPA will continue
to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which
Louisiana is not yet authorized.

J. How does today's action affect Indian Country in Louisiana?

    Louisiana is not authorized to carry out its Hazardous Waste
Program in Indian Country within the State. This authority remains with
EPA. Therefore, this action has no effect in Indian Country.

K. What is codification and is the EPA codifying Louisiana's Hazardous
Waste Program as authorized in this rule?

    Codification is the process of placing the State's statutes and
regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste
program into the CFR. We do this by referencing the authorized State
rules in 40 CFR part 272. We reserve the amendment of 40 CFR part 272,
subpart T for this authorization of Louisiana's program changes until a
later date. In this authorization application the EPA is not codifying
the rules documented in this Federal Register notice.

L. Administrative Requirements

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this action
(RCRA State Authorization) from the requirements of Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011). Therefore, this action is not subject to review by OMB. This
action authorizes State requirements for the purpose of RCRA 3006 and
imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law.
Accordingly, this action will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this action authorizes pre-existing
requirements under State law and does not impose any additional
enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it does not contain
any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4). For the same reason, this action also does not
significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Tribal governments,
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
This action 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 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999), because it merely authorizes State requirements as
part of the State RCRA hazardous waste program without altering the
relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities
established by RCRA. This action also is not subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant and it does not make decisions based on environmental
health or safety risks. This rule is not subject to Executive Order
13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001))
because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.
    Under RCRA 3006(b), the EPA grants a State's application for
authorization as long as the State meets the criteria required by RCRA.
It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for the EPA, when it
reviews a State authorization application, to require the use of any
particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard
that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required
by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996),
in issuing this rule, the EPA has taken the necessary steps to
eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation,
and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. The EPA has
complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by
examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the
``Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk
and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the Executive
Order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. It's 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. Because this rule authorizes pre-
existing State rules which are at least equivalent to, and no less
stringent than existing federal requirements, and impose no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by State law, and there are no
anticipated significant adverse human health or environmental effects,
the rule is not subject to Executive Order 12898.
    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 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. The EPA will submit a report containing this document
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 in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect
until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This
action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This
action nevertheless will be effective November 13, 2015.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste
transportation, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: This action is issued under the authority of sections
2002(a), 3006, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as
amended 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).

    Dated: August 21, 2015.
 Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2015-23073 Filed 9-11-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P