[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 69 (Friday, April 10, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19226-19231]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08218]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0756; FRL-9923-64]

Secondary (C13-C17) Alkane Sulfonates;
Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of two secondary alkane (C13-
C17) sulfonates (CAS Reg. Nos. 85711-69-9 and
97489-15-1) when used as inert ingredients (surfactant) in
pesticide formulations applied to growing crops at a maximum
concentration not to exceed 40% by weight. Exponent, on behalf of
Clariant Corporation, submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting establishment of an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation
eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for
residues of secondary alkane (C13-C17)
sulfonates.

DATES: This regulation is effective April 10, 2015. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before June 9, 2015, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0756, 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: Susan Lewis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following

list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes
is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help
readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially
affected entities may include:
    &sbull; Crop production (NAICS code 111).
    &sbull; Animal production (NAICS code 112).
    &sbull; Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
    &sbull; Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Publishing Office's e-CFR site at
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/
Title40/40tab_02.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-2013-0756 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 June 9, 2015. 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-2013-0756, by one of the following
methods:
    &sbull; 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.
    &sbull; Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001.
    &sbull; 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
&fnl;http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Petition for Exemption

    In the Federal Register of February 21, 2014 (79 FR 9870)
(FRL-9904-98), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA
section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide
petition (PP IN-10630) by Exponent, 1150 Connecticut Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20036 on behalf of Clariant Corporation, 4000 Monroe
Rd., Charlotte, NC 28205. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.920 be
amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of two inert ingredients, collectively referred
to as secondary alkane (C13-C17) sulfonates
(SAS): Sulfonic acids, C13-17-sec-alkane, sodium
salts (CAS Reg. No. 85711-69-9) and sulfonic acids,
C14-17-sec-alkane, sodium salts (CAS Reg. No.
97489-15-1) when used as surfactants in pesticide
formulations applied to growing crops. That document referenced a
summary of the petition prepared by Exponent, the petitioner, 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 is
limiting the tolerance exemption to pesticide formulations in which the
maximum concentration of the secondary alkane sulfonates is 40% by
weight. This limitation is based on the Agency's risk assessment which
can be found at &fnl;http://www.regulations.gov in document
“Secondary Alkane (C13-C17) Sulfonates
(SAS); Human Health Risk Assessment and Ecological Effects Assessment
to Support Proposed Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance When
Used as an Inert Ingredient in Pre-harvest Pesticide Products Under 40
CFR 180.920” in docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0756.

III. Inert Ingredient Definition

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

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA
defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the
pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures
and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.”
This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential
settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section
408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to
exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in
establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children
from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical
residue. . . .”
    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably
foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human
health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to
pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the
inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert
ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures
that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA
is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will

result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for secondary alkane
(C13-C17) sulfonates including exposure resulting
from the exemption established by this action. EPA's assessment of
exposures and risks associated with secondary alkane (C13-
C17) sulfonates follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature
of the adverse effects caused by secondary alkane (C13-
C17) sulfonates (also referred to as SAS) as well as the no-
observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-
effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in this
unit.
    The Agency relied on data on CAS Reg. No. 85711-69-9
(sulfonic acids (C13-C17 secondary alkane) to
assess both inert ingredients. Bridging data in this manner is
appropriate because CAS Reg. No. 97489-15-1 (sulfonic
acids, C14-C17 secondary alkane) has an alkyl
carbon chain length that falls within the carbon chain length range of
CAS Reg. No. 85711-69-9 (sulfonic acids, C13-
C17 secondary alkane) and toxic effects attributable to the
C14-C17 secondary alkane sulfonate would be
observed in toxicity testing of the C13-C17
secondary alkane sulfonate.
    The acute oral lethal dose (LD50) for SAS in rats is
>500 milligram/kilogram (mg/kg). The acute dermal LD50 in
mice is >200 mg/kg. Secondary alkane (C13-C17)
sulfonate is not a dermal irritant based on primary skin irritation
study in rabbits and it is not a dermal sensitizer in guinea pigs.
    A chronic toxicity study was conducted on SAS in rats and
demonstrated a NOAEL of 4,000 parts per million (ppm) (equivalent to
168 milligram/kilogram body weight/day (mg/kg bw/day) in males and 227
mg/kg bw/day in females), and a LOAEL of 20,000 ppm (equivalent to 920
mg/kg bw/day in males and 1,281 mg/kg bw/day in females) based on
reduced body weight, body weight gain, and the clinical signs of
reduced grooming in males and females.
    In a 2-generation reproduction study in rats dosed with SAS, there
was no indication that offspring were more susceptible than the
parental adults. The parental systemic LOAEL was 3,000 ppm (equivalent
to 177 mg/kg bw/day in males and 181 mg/kg bw/day in females), based on
decreased body weight gain during premating and on reduced organ
weight. The parental NOAEL was 1,000 ppm (equivalent to 58.2 mg/kg bw/
day for males and 66 mg/kg bw/day for females). The offspring LOAEL was
3,000 ppm (equivalent to 177 mg/kg bw/day) based on decreased pre- and
post-implantation loss and decreased weight gain in offspring. The
offspring NOAEL was 1,000 ppm (equivalent to 58.2 mg/kg bw/day).
    Secondary alkane (C13-C17) sulfonates were
not mutagenic when tested in the in vitro mammalian cell gene mutation
assay and in the Salmonella typhimurium reverse mutation assay.
    In a combined oral (dietary) chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study
of SAS in rats, there were no treatment-related neoplastic or non-
neoplastic microscopic findings observed up to 2.0% (equivalent to 805
mg/kg bw/day in males and 1,032 mg/kg bw/day in females), the highest
dose tested. A LOAEL was not identified. Although body weight of high-
dose males and females were lower by about 20% relative to controls
throughout most of the study, decreased body weight was not viewed as
an adverse effect since higher survival rates were observed in this
group compared to controls.
    In a dermal carcinogenicity study of SAS in mice, no indication of
increased incidence relative to controls of malignant neoplasms was
observed. No LOAEL was demonstrated. The NOAEL was 1.0% (equivalent to
0.6 mg/treatment), the highest concentration applied to the skin.
    Secondary alkane (C13-C17) sulfonates are
rapidly absorbed and excreted in the urine and feces. Secondary alkane
(C13-C17) sulfonates have a low potential for
dermal absorption based on a dermal penetration study in rats.
    Although no immunotoxicity or neurotoxicity studies on SAS were
available in the database, no evidence of immunotoxicity or
neurotoxicity was observed in the submitted studies.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which the NOAEL and the LOAEL are identified.
Uncertainty/safety factors (UF) 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 secondary alkane
(C13-C17) sulfonates used for human risk
assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.
    The 2-generation reproductive toxicity study in rats was selected
for oral, dietary, dermal, and inhalation exposure scenarios (all
durations) for this risk assessment. The parental systemic NOAEL in
this study was 1,000 ppm (equivalent to 58.2 mg/kg bw/day for males)
based on reduced body weight gain during premating and on reduced organ
weight seen at the LOAEL of 3,000 ppm (equivalent to 177 mg/kg bw/day).
The rationale for selecting this study for the dietary, dermal, and
inhalation exposure scenario is based on the fact that this study
provided the lowest and most conservative toxicity endpoint and route-
specific studies are available.
    A default 100% inhalation absorption will be used for inhalation
exposure scenarios. A 50% dermal absorption rate will be used for
dermal exposure scenarios based on the toxicokinetic dermal absorption
study.

 Table 1-Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Secondary Alkane (C13-C17) Sulfonates for Use in
                                              Human Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Point of departure
        Exposure/scenario            and uncertainty/     RfD, PAD, LOC for     Study and toxicological effects
                                      safety factors       risk assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary (All populations)  NOAEL = 58.2 mg/kg    Chronic RfD = 0.582  Rat reproductive toxicity study.
                                    bw/day.               mg/kg bw/day.       LOAEL = 177 mg/kg bw/day based on
                                   UFA = 10x...........  cPAD = 0.58 mg/kg     decreased weight gain during
                                   UFH = 10x...........   bw/day.              premating and reduced organ
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........                        weight.
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation)  Based on the lack of
                                    increased incidence
                                    of tumor formation
                                    compared to
                                    controls in
                                    multiple
                                    carcinogenicity
                                    studies and the
                                    lack of
                                    mutagenicity, SAS
                                    is considered not
                                    likely to be
                                    carcinogenic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level
  of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-
  level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor.
  UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among
  members of the human population (intraspecies).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to secondary alkane (C13-C17)
sulfonates, EPA considered exposure under the proposed exemption from
the requirement of a tolerance. EPA assessed dietary exposures from
secondary alkane (C13-C17) sulfonates in food as
follows:
    i. Acute Exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide chemical, 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 SAS;
therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is
unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. The chronic dietary exposure assessment for
this inert ingredient utilizes the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model
Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID), Version 3.16, EPA,
which includes food consumption information from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey,
“What We Eat In America”, (NHANES/WWEIA). This dietary
survey was conducted from 2003 to 2008. In the absence of actual
residue data, the inert ingredient evaluation is based on a highly
conservative model which assumes that the residue level of the inert
ingredient would be no higher than the highest established tolerance
for an active ingredient on a given commodity. Implicit in this
assumption is that there would be similar rates of degradation between
the active and inert ingredient (if any) and that the concentration of
inert ingredient in the scenarios leading to these highest of
tolerances would be no higher than the concentration of the active
ingredient. The model assumes 100 percent crop treated (PCT) for all
crops and that every food eaten by a person each day has tolerance-
level residues. A complete description of the general approach taken to
assess inert ingredient risks in the absence of residue data is
contained in the memorandum entitled “Alkyl Amines
Polyalkoxylates (Cluster 4): Acute and Chronic Aggregate (Food and
Drinking Water) Dietary Exposure and Risk Assessments for the
Inerts” (D361707, S. Piper, 2/25/09) and can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0738.
    iii Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that SAS does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a
dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is
unnecessary.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. For the purpose of the
screening level dietary risk assessment to support this request for an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for secondary alkane
(C13-C17) sulfonates, a conservative drinking
water concentration value of 100 parts per billion (ppb) based on
screening level modeling was used to assess the contribution to
drinking water for the chronic dietary risk assessments for parent
compound. These values were directly entered into the dietary exposure
model.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential
exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational,
non-dietary exposure (e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets,
swimming pools, and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors,
tables).
    Based on the use pattern for pesticide products containing SAS as
an inert ingredient, there are no residential uses and thus no
residential exposures are expected.
    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 secondary alkane (C13-C17)
sulfonates to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other
substances, and secondary alkane (C13-C17)
sulfonates do not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by
other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore,
EPA has assumed that secondary alkane (C13-C17)
sulfonates do 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. In a 2-generation
reproduction toxicity study, there was no evidence of susceptibility of
infants and children to SAS. In this study, the offspring and parental
toxicity NOAEL was 1,000 ppm (equivalent to 58.2 mg/kg bw/day) based
decreased pre- and post-implantation loss and decreased weight gain in
offspring and decreased body weight gain during premating and on
reduced organ weight in parental animals seen at the LOAEL was 3,000
ppm (equivalent to 177 mg/kg bw/day).
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for secondary alkane (C13-
C17) sulfonates includes a subchronic toxicity study, a 2-
generation reproduction study, chronic/carcinogenicity studies, several
mutagenicity studies, and two toxicokinetic studies. The Agency
concludes that for this ingredient, the results of these studies
provide a reliable basis for assessing the range of potential effects
to infants and children, such that the Agency has determined that no
additional data are necessary at this time to evaluate effects to
infants and children.
    ii. There is no indication that SAS is a neurotoxic chemical and
there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional
UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence of increased susceptibility due to pre-or
post-natal exposure to SAS in infants and children.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100 percent crop treated (PCT) and tolerance-level residues. EPA
made conservative (protective) assumptions utilizing a 100 ppb default
value in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure
to secondary alkane (C13-C17) sulfonates in
drinking water. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure
and risks posed by secondary alkane (C13-C17)
sulfonates.

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, therefore, an acute dietary exposure assessment was not
conducted.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
SAS from food and water will utilize 97.1% of the cPAD for children
1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest
exposure.
    3. Short-term and intermediate-term risk. Short-term and
intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account short-term
residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background exposure level). A short-term/
intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however, SAS is not
used as inert ingredient in any pesticide product registered for any
use patterns that would result in short-term or intermediate-term
residential exposure. Because there is no short-term or intermediate-
term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been
assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as
protective as the POD used to assess short-term risk), no further
assessment of short-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the
chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating short-term risk for SAS.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two rodent carcinogenicity studies,
secondary alkane (C13-C17) sulfonates are 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 secondary alkane (C13-C17) sulfonates
residues.

V. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Although EPA is establishing a limitation on the amount of SAS that
may be used in pesticide formulations, an analytical enforcement
methodology is not necessary for this exemption. The limitation will be
enforced through the pesticide registration process under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136 et
seq. EPA will not register any pesticide for sale or distribution for
use on growing crops with concentrations of SAS exceeding 40% by weight
of the formulation.

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 Nation 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 secondary alkane
(C13-C17) sulfonates.

VI. Conclusions

    Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is
established

under 40 CFR 180.920 for sulfonic acids, C13-17-
sec-alkane, sodium salts (CAS Reg. No. 85711-69-9) and
sulfonic acids, C14-17-sec-alkane, sodium salts
(CAS Reg. No. 97489-15-1) when used as inert ingredients
(surfactant) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops at not
more than 40% by weight of the pesticide formulation.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition
submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order
12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from
review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to
Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use”
(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
“Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not
contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it
require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898,
entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the exemption in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled
“Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive
Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply
to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any
enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et
seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VIII. 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: March 10, 2015.
Susan Lewis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180—[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In §&thnsp;180.920, add alphabetically the following inert
ingredients to the table to read as follows:

§&thnsp;180.920  Inert ingredients used pre-harvest; exemptions
from the requirement of a tolerance.

* * * * *

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

*         *  &ems
p;      *     &em
sp;   *        &e
msp;*         *
                      *
Sulfonic acids, C13-17-sec-     Not to exceed 40% by   Surfactant.
 alkane, sodium salts (CAS       weight in non-
 Reg. No.                        residential use
 85711-69-9).        pesticide
                                 formulation only.
Sulfonic acids, C14-17-sec-     Not to exceed 40% by   Surfactant.
 alkane, sodium salts (CAS       weight in non-
 Reg. No.                        residential
 97489-15-1).        pesticide
                                 formulation only.

*         *  &ems
p;      *     &em
sp;   *        &e
msp;*         *
                      *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2015-08218 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 134 (Monday, July 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40751-40752]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16341]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CD14-22-000]

Roaring Springs Ranch; Notice of Preliminary Determination of a
Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility and Soliciting Comments and
Motions To Intervene

    On June 23, 2014, Roaring Springs Ranch filed a notice of intent to
construct a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, pursuant to section
30 of the Federal Power Act, as amended by section 4 of the Hydropower
Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013 (HREA). The Roaring Springs
Headquarters Hydropower Project would utilize a newly constructed
agricultural water distribution system at the Roaring Springs Ranch in
Harney County, Oregon.
    Applicant Contact: Darryl Anderson, Anderson Engineering &
Surveying, Inc., 17681 Highway 395, Lakeview, OR 97630, Phone No. (541)
947-4407.
    FERC Contact: Christopher Chaney, Phone No.<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility Description: The proposed
project would consist of: (1) A new 14-foot-wide by 17-foot-long
powerhouse; (2) one proposed 37-kilowatt turbine/generating unit; and
(3) appurtenant facilities.
    A qualifying conduit hydropower facility is one that is determined
or deemed to meet all of the criteria shown in the table below.

      Table 1--Criteria for Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Satisfies (Y/
       Statutory provision               Description             N)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FPA 30(a)(3)(A), as amended by    The conduit the facility            Y
 HREA.                             uses is a tunnel,
                                   canal, pipeline,
                                   aqueduct, flume, ditch,
                                   or similar manmade
                                   water conveyance that
                                   is operated for the
                                   distribution of water
                                   for agricultural,
                                   municipal, or
                                   industrial consumption
                                   and not primarily for
                                   the generation of
                                   electricity.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(i), as amended    The facility is                     Y
 by HREA.                          constructed, operated,
                                   or maintained for the
                                   generation of electric
                                   power and uses for such
                                   generation only the
                                   hydroelectric potential
                                   of a non-federally
                                   owned conduit.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(ii), as amended   The facility has an                 Y
 by HREA.                          installed capacity that
                                   does not exceed 5
                                   megawatts.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(iii), as amended  On or before August 9,              Y
 by HREA.                          2013, the facility is
                                   not licensed, or
                                   exempted from the
                                   licensing requirements
                                   of Part I of the FPA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Preliminary Determination: Based upon the above criteria,
Commission staff preliminarily determines that the proposal satisfies
the requirements for a qualifying conduit hydropower facility not
required to be licensed or exempted from licensing.
    Comments and Motions to Intervene: Deadline for filing comments
contesting whether the facility meets the qualifying criteria is 45
days from the issuance date of this notice.
    Deadline for filing motions to intervene is 30 days from the
issuance date of this notice.
    Anyone may submit comments or a motion to intervene in accordance
with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR
385.210 and 385.214. Any motions to intervene must be received on or
before the specified deadline date for the particular proceeding.
    Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must (1)
bear in all capital letters the ``COMMENTS CONTESTING QUALIFICATION FOR
A CONDUIT HYDROPOWER FACILITY'' or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE,'' as
applicable; (2) state in the heading the name of the applicant and the
project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3)
state the name, address, and telephone number of the person filing; and
(4) otherwise comply with the requirements of sections 385.2001 through
385.2005 of the Commission's regulations.\1\ All

comments contesting Commission staff's preliminary determination that
the facility meets the qualifying criteria must set forth their
evidentiary basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 385.2001-2005 (2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene and comments using the Commission's eFiling system
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit
brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration,
using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the
end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper
copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. A copy of all other filings in
reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service
on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in
this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
    Locations of Notice of Intent: Copies of the notice of intent can
be obtained directly from the applicant or such copies can be viewed
and reproduced at the Commission in its Public Reference Room, Room 2A,
888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filing may also be
viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number (e.g., CD14-22) in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-
free 1-866-208-3676 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call
(202) 502-8659.

    Dated: July 7, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-16341 Filed 7-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 193 (Monday, October 6, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60087-60090]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23399]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 312

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2014-0474; FRL-9917-28-OSWER]

Amendment to Standards and Practices for All Appropriate
Inquiries

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is amending the
standards and practices for conducting all appropriate inquiries under
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act (CERCLA) to remove the reference to ASTM International's E1527-05
standard practice. This 2005 standard practice was replaced with an
updated standard, the E1527-13, by ASTM International, a widely
recognized standards development organization. Specifically, EPA is
amending the ``All Appropriate Inquiries Rule'' to remove the reference
to ASTM International's E1527-05 ``Standard Practice for Environmental
Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process.''

DATES: The effective date for this action is October 6, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the HQ EPA
Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.
NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room at this docket facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Superfund Docket is
(202) 566-9744.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the
CERCLA Call Center at<PHONE_NUMBER> or TDD<PHONE_NUMBER> (hearing
impaired). In the Washington, DC metropolitan area, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
or TDD<PHONE_NUMBER>. For more detailed information on specific aspects
of this rule, contact Patricia Overmeyer, Office of Brownfields and
Land Revitalization (5105T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Regulated Entities
II. Statutory Authority
III. Background
IV. Summary of Comments and EPA Responses
V. Overview of Today's Action
VI. Effective Date of Final Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Regulated Entities

    The EPA is removing the reference to the 2005 ASTM standard in the
All Appropriate Inquiries Rule at 40 CFR part 312 (70 FR 66070, as
amended). In November 2013, ASTM International replaced its 2005
standard (ASTM E1527-05 ``Standard Practice for Environmental Site
Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process'') with an
updated standard, ASTM E1527-13 ``Standard Practice for Environmental
Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process.'' The
updated 2013 standard is a currently recognized industry consensus-
based standard to conduct all appropriate inquiries as provided under
CERCLA. In December 2013, EPA published a final rule indicating that
parties who acquire potentially contaminated properties and brownfields
grantees using EPA brownfield grant funding to conduct site
characterizations and assessments may use the ASTM E1527-13 standard
practice when conducting all appropriate inquiries pursuant to CERCLA
(78 FR 79319). Today's rule does not include any changes to the
standards and practices included in the All Appropriate Inquiries Rule
(AAI Rule). Any party who wants to meet the provisions under CERCLA to
conduct all appropriate inquiries may follow the standards and
procedures set forth in the AAI Rule at 40 CFR part 312 or use the new
ASTM E1527-13 standard, as provided in the AAI Rule.
    Persons potentially affected by this action are those who perform
all appropriate inquiries, including public and private entities who
intend to claim protection from CERCLA liability as bona fide
prospective purchasers, contiguous property owners, or innocent
landowners. In addition, any person conducting a site characterization
or assessment on a property with a brownfields grant awarded under
CERCLA section 104(k)(2)(B)(ii) may be affected by today's action. This
includes state, local and tribal governments that receive brownfields
site assessment grants. A summary of the potentially affected industry
sectors (by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)
codes) is displayed in the table below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Industry category                       NAICS code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Real Estate.......................  531
Insurance.........................  52412
Banking/Real Estate Credit........  52292
Environmental Consulting Services.  54162
State, Local and Tribal Government  926110, 925120
Federal Government................  925120, 921190, 924120
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The list of potentially affected persons in the above table may not
be exhaustive. Our aim is to provide a guide for readers regarding
those entities that EPA is aware potentially could be affected by this
action.

II. Statutory Authority

    Today's action, which amends the AAI Rule at 40 CFR part 312
setting Federal standards for the conduct of ``all appropriate
inquiries,'' is authorized under section 101(35)(B) of CERCLA (42
U.S.C. 9601), as amended by the Small Business Liability Relief and
Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2002.

III. Background

    On January 11, 2002, President Bush signed the Small Business
Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act, Public Law 107-118
(``the Brownfields Amendments''), which amended CERCLA. In general, the
Brownfields Amendments provide funds to assess and clean up brownfields
sites; clarify CERCLA liability provisions related to certain
purchasers of contaminated properties; and provide funding to enhance
state and tribal cleanup programs. Subtitle B of the Brownfields
Amendments added new limitations on CERCLA liability under section 107
for bona fide prospective purchasers and contiguous property owners and
clarified the requirements necessary to establish the innocent
landowner defense under CERCLA. The Brownfields Amendments also revised
section 101(35) of CERCLA to provide that parties acquiring
contaminated or potentially contaminated property must undertake ``all
appropriate inquiries'' into prior ownership and use of the property
prior

to acquisition to qualify for protection from CERCLA liability.
    The Brownfields Amendments further directed EPA to develop
regulations establishing standards and practices for conducting all
appropriate inquiries. On November 1, 2005, EPA promulgated regulations
that established standards and practices for all appropriate inquiries
(70 FR 66070). In the AAI Rule, EPA referenced the existing ASTM E1527-
05 ``Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment Process'' and authorized its use to
comply with the rule. On December 23, 2008, EPA revised the AAI Rule to
recognize another ASTM International standard as compliant with the
standards and practices set forth in the AAI Rule, ASTM E2247-08
``Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment Process for Forestland or Rural
Property'' (73 FR 78716).
    In November 2013, ASTM International published ASTM E1527-13,
``Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment Process.'' In early 2013, at ASTM
International's request, EPA reviewed this standard and determined that
a person's use of the standard would be compliant with the AAI Rule.
    On December 30, 2013, EPA published a final rule which provided
that persons conducting all appropriate inquiries may use the
procedures included in ASTM E1527-13 to comply with the AAI Rule (78 FR
79319). On June 17, 2014, EPA published a proposed rule (79 FR 34480)
proposing to amend the AAI Rule to remove the reference to ASTM E1527-
05 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Standard.

IV. Summary of Comments and EPA Responses

    In response to the June 17, 2014 proposed rule (79 FR 34480), EPA
received five comments. Four of the comments were supportive of the
proposed rule. The sole negative comment asserted that the principal
difference between the E1527-05 standard and the E1527-13 standard is
the inclusion of a requirement to evaluate the potential presence of
vapor releases under the E1527-13 standard. The commenter further
stated that because vapor releases are not by themselves a CERCLA
concern, EPA should continue to allow for the use of the E1527-05
standard. EPA disagrees with this comment. The scope of the AAI Rule
and the ASTM E1527-05 standard always included the requirement to
identify all indications of releases and threatened releases of
hazardous substances, or ``recognized environmental conditions
(RECs),'' including indications of vapor migration or vapor releases.
With the updates included in the 2013 version of the ASTM E1527
standard, ASTM modified the definition of migration to specifically
include vapor migration and remove any confusion regarding the need to
identify all RECs, or all indications of releases or threatened
releases of hazardous substances, when conducting an AAI investigation.
    Two of the commenters who supported EPA's proposed rule recommended
in their comments that EPA delay the effective date of the final rule
until six months after the publication date, rather than the one year
delay proposed by EPA. Although EPA agrees with the commenters'
statements that most environmental professionals are likely already
using the updated E1527-13 standard, the Agency believes it is prudent
to provide for the one year delay in the effective date. The AAI Rule
requires that AAI investigations be conducted within one year prior to
the date of acquisition of the subject property (see 40 CFR 312.20(a)).
In addition, the AAI Rule requires that certain aspects of the AAI
investigation be conducted or updated within 180 days prior to the date
of acquisition of the subject property (40 CFR 312.20(b)). Given these
requirements, EPA determined that delaying the effective date for the
final rule by only six months may be burdensome for some parties.
Therefore, the effective date for this final rule, which removes the
reference to the ASTM E1527-05 standard, will be October 6, 2015
allowing sufficient time for AAI investigations initiated or on-going
at the time of publication of today's rule to be completed or updated
prior to the effective date.

V. Overview of Today's Action

    EPA is amending the AAI Rule at 40 CFR 312 to remove the reference
to ASTM International's E1527-05 ``Standard Practice for Environmental
Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process.'' In
November 2013, ASTM International designated this standard a
``historical standard'' and replaced it with the updated ASTM E1527-13
``Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment Process.''
    Today's action does not prevent parties from continuing to use
other standards, methods, or customary business practices for
conducting all appropriate inquiries, so long as they comply with the
standards and practices set forth in the AAI Rule. Instead, today's
proposed action removes the reference to a standard that ASTM
International no longer recognizes as current since it no longer
represents the most recent consensus-based standard.
    EPA is taking this action because the Agency wants to reduce any
confusion associated with the regulatory reference to a historical
standard that is no longer recognized by its originating organization
as meeting its standards for good customary business practice. In
addition, we believe that today's final rule will promote the use of
the 2013 standard currently recognized by ASTM International as the
consensus-based, good customary business standard.
    Today's action includes no further changes to the AAI Rule other
than to remove the reference to the historical ASTM E1527-05 standard.
It does not impact the reference to the recently revised ASTM standard,
E1527-13 in the AAI Rule. It also does not impact parties who acquired
properties between November 1, 2005 and the effective date of this
final rule and used the 2005 ASTM standard (ASTM E1527-05) to comply
with the AAI Rule, as it was in effect at the time the property was
acquired.

VI. Effective Date of Final Action

    Today's action is a final rule. The EPA anticipates that some
parties, at this time may still be using the historical standard (ASTM
E1527-05) to comply with the provisions of the AAI Rule. Therefore, the
Agency is delaying the effective date of today's final action for one
year to provide parties with an adequate opportunity to complete AAI
investigations that may be ongoing and to become familiar with the
updated industry standard (ASTM E1527-13). The effective date of
today's final rule, which will remove the reference to ASTM E1527-05 in
the AAI rule, is October 6, 2015.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and is
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action will not impose an information collection burden under
the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). The current regulation does not
have an information collection burden and today's action's only change
to the regulation is to delete the reference to a historical standard
that recently was replaced with an updated version of the standard. A
final rule referencing the updated version of the standard was
published by EPA on December 30, 2013 (78 FR 79319).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute; unless the agency certifies that
the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small business, small
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    Today's action does not change the current regulatory status quo
and does not impose any regulatory requirements. After considering the
economic impacts of today's final rule on small entities, I certify
that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for state, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or
tribal governments or the private sector. This action merely removes a
reference to a historical voluntary consensus standard. The final rule
imposes no new regulatory requirements and will result in no additional
burden to any entity. Therefore, this action is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
    As stated above, this final rule also is not subject to the
requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no new
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. Today's final
rule will not substantially change the current regulation; it merely
removes a reference to a historical voluntary consensus standard. It
will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in EO 13132. Thus, EO 13132 does not apply to
this rule.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in EO
13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action merely removes a
reference to a historical voluntary consensus standard. Today's final
rule does not change any current regulatory requirements and therefore
will not impose any impacts upon tribal entities. Thus, EO 13175 does
not apply to this action.

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

    EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying
only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks,
such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the
potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO
13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended
to mitigate health or safety risks.

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

    Today's final rule is not subject to EO 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22,
2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under EO
12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This action involves technical standards. Therefore, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTAA (15 U.S.C. 272) apply. The
NTTAA was signed into law on March 7, 1996 and, among other things,
directs the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to
bring together federal agencies as well as state and local governments
to achieve greater reliance on voluntary standards and decreased
dependence on in-house standards. It states that use of such standards,
whenever practicable and appropriate, is intended to achieve the
following goals: (a) Eliminate the cost to the government of developing
its own standards and decrease the cost of goods procured and the
burden of complying with agency regulation; (b) provide incentives and
opportunities to establish standards that serve national needs; (c)
encourage long-term growth for U.S. enterprises and promote efficiency
and economic competition through harmonization of standards; and (d)
further the policy of reliance upon the private sector to supply
Government needs for goods and services. The Act requires that federal
agencies adopt private sector standards, particularly those developed
by standards developing organizations (SDOs), wherever possible in lieu
of creating proprietary, non-consensus standards.
    Today's final rule complies with the NTTAA as it allows persons
conducting all appropriate inquiries to use the procedures included in
the updated ASTM International standard known as Standard E1527-13 and
entitled ``Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase
I Environmental Site Assessment Process'' to comply with the AAI Rule.
The rule also deletes reference to a standard that is no longer
recognized as current by the standards developing organization
responsible for its development.

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

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

environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it
does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. Today's action merely removes a reference to a historical
voluntary consensus standard and does not impose any new requirements.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 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.
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. 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 rule is
effective on October 6, 2015.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 312

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Hazardous substances.

    Dated: September 19, 2014.
Mathy Stanislaus,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 312--INNOCENT LANDOWNERS, STANDARDS FOR CONDUCTING ALL
APPROPRIATE INQUIRIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 312 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  Section 101(35)(B) of CERCLA, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
9601(35)(B).

Subpart B--Definitions and References

Sec.  312.11  [Amended]

0
2. Section 312.11 is amended by removing paragraph (a) and
redesignating paragraphs (b) and (c) as paragraphs (a) and (b).

[FR Doc. 2014-23399 Filed 10-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


OVERVIEW OF THE NPL Presentation to the NACEPT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE  June 18 19, 2002 NPL Listing ( Overview) 2 PROGRAM CHARGE ° What should be the role of the NPL in addressing waste cleanup given other cleanup options? Should it be a " tool of last resort?"

° What parties ( e. g., states, tribes, and communities) should have formal consultation roles in NPL listing? Should this role differ by site type or risk?

° What kinds of sites belong on the NPL? Should the NPL be used for a more limited range of sites ( for example, only sites where human health is at risk,

not ecological risk)? If so, how might other major risks be addressed? Presentation to the NACEPT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE  June 18 19, 2002 NPL Listing ( Overview)

Statutory Basis for the HRS: Section 105( a)( 8)( A)

Amend the NCP to include:

° " 8)( A) criteria for determining priorities among releases or threatened releases throughout the United States for the purpose of taking remedial action and ... removal action"

° " Criteria and priorities under this paragraph shall be based upon relative risk or danger to public health or welfare or the environment, in the judgment of the President" Presentation to the NACEPT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE  June 18 19, 2002 NPL Listing ( Overview)

Statutory Basis for the HRS: Section 105( a)( 8)( A) ( cont.)

Taking into account to the extent possible the:

° population at risk ° hazard potential of the hazardous substances ° potential for contamination of drinking water supplies ° potential for direct human contact ° potential for destruction of sensitive eco systems ° damage to natural resources which may affect the human food chain ° contamination or potential contamination of the ambient air ° State preparedness to assume State costs and responsibilities, and other appropriate factors Presentation to the NACEPT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE  June 18 19, 2002 NPL Listing ( Overview)

Statutory Basis for the NPL: Section 105 ( a)( 8)( B)

Based on criteria in ( A) the President shall:

° list national priorities among the known releases or threatened releases throughout the United States ° revise the list no less often than annually ° consider any priorities established by the States ° to the extent practicable, designate [ at least 400 of] the highest priority facilities individually ° include among the one hundred highest priority facilities one such facility from each State which shall be the facility designated by the State as presenting the greatest danger ... among the known facilities in such State Presentation to the NACEPT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE  June 18 19, 2002 NPL Listing ( Overview)

The National Contingency Plan ( NCP)

° The Hazard Ranking System, promulgated as Appendix B to the NCP in July 1982 and amended December 1990, meets the requirements for establishing criteria ° The NCP, as amended in March 1990, limits Fund financed remedial actions to releases on the NPL ° Listing does not imply that funds will be expended and does not by itself set funding priorities ° The NCP establishes the criteria ( HRS, State designation, or ATSDR health advisory) for listing a site Presentation to the NACEPT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE  June 18 19, 2002 NPL Listing ( Overview)

Conclusion ° CERCLA and the NCP, including the HRS, provide the specific statutory and regulatory framework for the NPL


[Federal Register: January 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 18)]
[Notices]
[Page 4858-4860]
[DOCID:fr28ja08-49]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PF08-2-000]

MarkWest Pioneer, L.L.C.; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Arkoma Connector Pipeline
Project; and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

January 18, 2008.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the proposed Arkoma Connector
Pipeline Project which involves the construction and operation of
natural gas pipeline facilities in Coal, Atoka, and Bryan Counties,
Oklahoma. This notice announces the opening of the scoping period that
will be used to gather environmental input from the public and
interested agencies on the project. Your input will help the Commission
staff determine which issues need to be evaluated in the EA. Please
note that the scoping period will close on February 20, 2008.
    Comments may be submitted in written form or verbally. Further
details on how to submit written comments are provided in the Public
Participation portion of this notice.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted
by a pipeline company representative about the acquisition of an
easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities.
MarkWest Pioneer, L.L.C. (MarkWest) would seek to negotiate a mutually
acceptable agreement. However, if the project is approved by the
Commission, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain.
Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an

agreement, MarkWest could initiate condemnation proceedings in
accordance with state law.
    This notice is being sent to affected landowners; federal, state,
and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
Native American tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries
and newspapers. State and local government representatives are asked to
notify their constituents of this proposed project and to encourage
them to comment on their areas of concern.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' addresses a number
of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and
how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is available for
viewing on the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov).

Summary of the Proposed Project

    MarkWest seeks authorization to construct new pipeline facilities
in Coal, Atoka, and Bryan Counties, Oklahoma. The Arkoma Connector
Pipeline Project would consist of about 50 miles of 24-inch-diameter
pipeline, a 10,000-horsepower compressor station and associated
facilities, and two meter stations. The pipeline project would be
designed to deliver a peak day capacity of 300,000 to 350,000
decatherms of natural gas from producers in the Arkoma Basin area of
southeastern Oklahoma to the Midcontinent Express Pipeline that is
currently proposed under Docket No. CP08-6-000. The general location of
the proposed project facilities is shown in Appendix 1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of all appendices are
available on the Commission's Web site at the ``eLibrary'' link or
from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary refer to the last page of this notice. Copies
of the appendices were sent to all those receiving this notice in
the mail. Requests for detailed maps of the proposed facilities
should be made directly to MarkWest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the proposed project would affect a total of about
629 acres. Following construction, about 319 acres would be allowed to
revert to its previous conditions. Disturbance associated with
aboveground facilities would permanently impact approximately 10 acres
of land. The compressor station would require about 8 acres and the two
meter stations would each require about 1 acre of disturbance. MarkWest
would seek a 90-foot-wide construction right-of-way for the pipeline,
and would maintain a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way for operation
of the pipeline.

The EA Process

    We \2\ are preparing this EA to comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) which requires the Commission to take
into account the environmental impact that could result if it
authorizes MarkWest's proposal. By this notice, we are also asking
federal, state, and local agencies with jurisdiction and/or special
expertise with respect to environmental issues to formally cooperate
with us in the preparation of the EA. Agencies that would like to
request cooperating status should follow the instructions for filing
comments provided below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the FERC's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NEPA also requires the FERC to discover and address concerns the
public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as
``scoping.'' The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the
analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By this
Notice of Intent, we are requesting public comments on the scope of the
issues to address in the EA. All comments received will be considered
during the preparation of the EA.
    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the proposed project under these
general headings:
     Geology and soils.
     Land use.
     Water resources, fisheries, and wetlands.
     Cultural resources.
     Vegetation and wildlife.
     Air quality and noise.
     Endangered and threatened species.
     Hazardous waste.
     Public safety.
    We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the proposed project
or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen
or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    Although no formal application has been filed, the FERC staff has
already initiated its NEPA review under its Pre-filing Process. The
purpose of the Pre-filing Process is to encourage the early involvement
of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before an
application is filed with the FERC.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the project. By filing comments, your
concerns will be addressed in the EA and considered by the Commission.
You should focus on the potential environmental effects of the
proposal, reasonable alternatives to the proposal including alternative
locations and routes, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental
impact. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be.
Please carefully follow these instructions to ensure that your comments
are received in time and properly recorded:
     Send an original and two copies of your letter to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First St., NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
     Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas
Branch 3.
     Reference Docket No. PF08-2-000.
     Mail your comments so that they will be received in
Washington, DC, on or before February 20, 2008.
    The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments. See Title
18 Code of Federal Regulations, section 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the
instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under
the ``e-Filing'' link and the link to the User's Guide. Prepare your
submission in the same manner as you would if filing on paper and save
it to a file on your hard drive. Before you can file comments you will
need to create an account by clicking on ``Login to File'' and then
``New User Account.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing
you are making. This filing is considered a ``Comment on Filing.''
    We might mail the EA for comment. If you are interested in
receiving it, please return the Information Request (Appendix 3). If
you do not return the Information Request, you will be taken off the
mailing list.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the
FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the ``eLibrary''
link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter
the docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number
field. Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.

    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to
the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-1419 Filed 1-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P