                                                         BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0264; FRL-XXXXX-XX]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Renewal of an Existing Collection (EPA ICR No. 1246.14 and OMB Control No. 2070-0072); Comment Request
 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

 ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: 	EPA has submitted the following information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA): "Reporting and Recordkeeping for Asbestos Abatement Worker Protection" and identified by EPA ICR No. 1246.14 and OMB Control No. 2070-0072. The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized in this document. EPA did receive one comment in response to the previously provided public review opportunity issued in the Federal Register on May 20, 2020 (85 FR 98). However, the comment was not germane to the ICR. With this submission, EPA is providing an additional 30 days for public review.
DATES:  Comments must be received on or before [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0264 by one of the following methods:
	:: Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
	:: Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 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.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Cox, National Program Chemicals Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS> SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I.  What Information is EPA Particularly Interested in?
	Pursuant to PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
	1.  Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
	2.  Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
	3.  Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
	4.  Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.
II.  What Information Collection Activity or ICR Does this Action Apply to?
Title:  Reporting and Recordkeeping for Asbestos Abatement Worker Protection
 EPA ICR number:  EPA ICR No. 1246.14.
OMB control number: OMB Control No. 2070-0072.
ICR status: This ICR is currently approved through December 31, 2020. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA regulations in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers for certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
Abstract:  The 2000 Asbestos Worker Protection Rule (40 CFR part 763, subpart G) (hereafter referred to as the "2000 WPR," or simply "WPR") establishes workplace standards for the protection of state and local government employees who work with asbestos and who are not covered by a state plan approved by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Currently, state and local government employees in 24 states, the District of Columbia (D.C.), and three additional U.S. territories (D.C. and the territories are counted as one "state equivalent") who perform construction work, including building construction, renovation, demolition, and maintenance activities, and employees who perform brake and clutch repair work, are covered by EPA's WPR. The WPR incorporates, by reference, the OSHA Construction Industry Standard for Asbestos (29 CFR part 1926.1101) and the General Industry Standard for Asbestos (29 CFR part 1910.1001); see Attachments D and E respectively. As a result, the WPR requires state and local government employers to use engineering controls and appropriate work practices to control the release of asbestos fibers. Covered employers must also monitor employee exposure to asbestos and provide employees with personal protective equipment, training, and medical surveillance to reduce the risk of asbestos exposure. Exposure monitoring records must be maintained for 30 years, medical surveillance records for the duration of employment of the affected employees plus 30 years, and training records for the duration of employment plus one year. Employers must also establish written respiratory protection programs and maintain procedures and records of respirator fit tests for one year. The total burden of the information collection is 372,969 hours, with a per-response burden of 0.32 hours, or 19.2 minutes.
	The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized here:
Respondents/Affected Entities: States and local govern - ment employers in the 24 states, D.C., and the U.S. territories of American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands that have employees en - gaged in asbestos-related construction, custodial, and brake and clutch repair activities without OSHA-approved state plans
Estimated total number of potential respondents: 25,312
Frequency of response:  On occasion.
Estimated total annual burden: 372,969 hours
Estimated total annual costs:  $16,894,178
III.  Are There Changes in the Estimates from the Last Approval?
	There was no change from the burden hours from the last approval. Estimated annual costs showed an increase of $1.13 million due to increasing wage rates.
IV.  What is the Next Step in the Process for this ICR?
	EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another Federal Register document pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
       Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Dated: Click or tap to enter eSignature date.
Alexandra Dapolito Dunn,
 Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 215 (Monday, November 7, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 78133]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26845]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Commission Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives
notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following
meetings related to the transmission planning activities of the New
York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO):

NYISO Electric System Planning Working Group Meeting

    November 7, 2016, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST).
    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and
teleconference.
    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/committees/documents.jsp?com=bic_espwg&directory=2016-11-07.

NYISO Business Issues Committee Meeting

    November 16, 2016, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST).
    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and
teleconference.
    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/committees/documents.jsp?com=bic&directory=2016-11-16.

NYISO Operating Committee Meeting

    November 17, 2016, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST).
    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and
teleconference.
    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/committees/documents.jsp?com=oc&directory=2016-11-17.

NYISO Management Committee Meeting

    November 30, 2016, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST).
    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and
teleconference.
    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/committees/documents.jsp?com=mc&directory=2016-11-30.
    The discussions at the meetings described above may address matters
at issue in the following proceedings:
    New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER13-102.
    New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER15-2059.
    New York Transco, LLC, Docket No. ER15-572.
    For more information, contact James Eason, Office of Energy Market
Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: November 1, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-26845 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY 2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48105 2498 MEMORANDUM March 3, 2006 Subject: Estimated Number of Refueling Events for Residential Mowing Equipment From: Phil Carlson, Engineer // Signed// Nonroad Center To: Docket EPA OAR 2004 0008 In an effort to estimate the number of refueling events associated with residential mowing equipment, EPA pulled information on equipment activity from the NONROAD model. The NONROAD model is EPA's model for estimating emissions from most categories of nonroad equipment, including lawn and garden equipment. The following table includes the estimated population and associated activity from the NONROAD model for the three residential applications used for mowing grass. ( The numbers presented in the table do not include equipment in California, which sets its own emission standards for nonroad engines.)

Residential Mowing Equipment Population and Activity Based on EPA's NONROAD Model Application Estimated 2005 Population ( 49 state, excludes California) Associated Annual Activity ( hours) Residential Walk Behind Mowers 34,985,448 874,636,202 Residential Lawn and Garden Tractors 12,728,882 572,799,672 Rear Engine Riding Mowers 1,862,666 67,055,975 Total for Residential Mowing Equipment 49,576,996 1,514,491,849 In general, EPA believes that a tank of gas on residential mowing equipment will provide roughly one hour of operation. As a result, the number of refueling events associated with residential mowing equipment will be roughly equivalent to the total activity ( in hours) of residential mowing equipment. Therefore, EPA estimates there were roughly 1.5 billion refueling events associated with residential mowing equipment for the 2005 calendar year.


<EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE
PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER  (7/1/2007)>

<EPA Registration Division contact: [insert name and telephone number
with area code]>

<INSTRUCTIONS:  Please utilize this outline in preparing the pesticide
petition.  In cases where the outline element does not apply, please
insert “NA-Remove” and maintain the outline. Please do not change
the margins, font, or format in your pesticide petition. Simply replace
the instructions that appear in green, i.e., “[insert company
name],” with the information specific to your action.>

<TEMPLATE:>

<[Bayer CropScience]>

<[Insert petition number]>

<	EPA has received a pesticide petition ([insert petition number]) from
[Bayer CropScience], [P.O. Box 12014, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27709] proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to
amend 40 CFR part 180.>

<(Options (pick one)>

<	1. by establishing a tolerance for residues of>

<	[Prothioconazole,
2-[2-(1-chlorocyclopropyl)-3-(2-chlorophenyl-2-hydroxypropyl]-1,2-dihydr
o-3H-1,2,4-triazole-3-thione and its desthio metabolite] in or on the
raw or processed agricultural commodity [rice, grain] at [0.25] parts
per million (ppm), [rice, hulls] at [1.0] parts per million (ppm),
[alfalfa, forage and alfalfa, hay] at [0.02] parts per million (ppm) and
[potato, tuber] at [0.02] parts per million (ppm).

Bayer CropScience is also proposing use of the currently established
tolerances for residues of Prothioconazole,
2-[2-(1-chlorocyclopropyl)-3-(2-chlorophenyl-2-hydroxypropyl]-1,2-dihydr
o-3H-1,2,4-triazole-3-thione and its desthio metabolite, in or on the
raw agricultural commodity [pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean,
subgroup 6C],  [soybean, forage], [soybean, hay], [soybean, seed] to
support the use of prothioconazole as a seed treatment on these crops.
Bayer CropScience is also proposing that the above proposed tolerances
on rice, based on foliar data, also support the use of prothioconazole
as a seed treatment on rice.

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

<A. Residue Chemistry>

<	1. Plant metabolism. [In plants, the metabolism of prothioconazole is
adequately understood for purposes of establishing these proposed
tolerances. Prothioconazole was extensively metabolized in plants with
the major residue found in all crops (wheat, peanuts and sugar beets)
being JAU6476-desthio with smaller amounts of various isomers of
JAU6476-hydroxy-desthio, and their conjugates also being found.
Triazolylalanine, triazolylhydroxypropionic acid, and triazolylacetic
acid, metabolites common to the triazole-derivative class of fungicides,
were also found. Based on the above data the residues of concern in
plants are prothioconazole and its metabolite JAU6476-desthio. The risk
assessment for the common metabolites arising from the
triazole-derivative fungicides is being addressed by the US Triazole
Task Force.  In large animals, the nature of residues is also adequately
understood for purposes of establishing the proposed tolerances. The
residues of concern in edible tissues and milk are prothioconazole, its
metabolites JAU6476-desthio, JAU6476-4-hydroxy, and their conjugates
that can be converted to these three compounds by acid hydrolysis.]>

<	2. Analytical method. [The analytical method for determining residues
of concern in plants extracts residues of prothioconazole and
JAU6476-desthio and converts the prothioconazole  to JAU6476-desthio and
JAU6476-sulfonic acid. Following addition of internal standards the
sample extracts are analyzed by LC/MS/MS. Radiovalidation and
independent laboratory validation have shown that the method adequately
quantifies prothioconazole residues in treated commodities. The
validated LOQ for total prothioconazole-derived residues in rice grain
was 0.02 ppm. The validated LOQs were 0.01 ppm for 1H-1,2,4-triazole and
0.05 pm for the triazole conjugates for grain. The analytical method for
analysis of large animal tissues includes extraction of the residues of
concern, followed by addition of an internal standard to the extract.
The extract is then hydrolyzed to release conjugates, partitioned and
analyzed by LC/MS/MS as prothioconazole, JAU6476-desthio and
JAU6476-4-hydroxy. The method for analysis of milk eliminated the
initial extraction step in the tissue method.]

>

<	3. Magnitude of residues. [A total of 16 field trials (14 harvest and
2 decline) were conducted as part of the supervised crop field trial
study for rice to measure the prothioconazole derived residues in/on
rice following two foliar spray applications of JAU6476 480 SC at a
target rate of 0.18 lb ai/acre/application (0.20 kg ai/ha/application),
with a 13 to 16 day spray interval. Rice grain and straw were collected
from each treated plot with PHIs ranging from 40 to 67 days. At two
locations additional samples were taken to determine residue decline.
The average prothioconazole derived residue was 0.03 ppm in/on rice
grain with a maximum residue of 0.22 ppm. Results of the rice processing
study indicated that prothioconazole residues concentrated in rice hulls
(4.4X), but not in polished grain or bran. Residues of 1H-1,2,4-triazole
were less than the LOQ (<0.01 ppm) in/on rice grain. Maximum residues of
the triazole conjugates were 0.571 ppm (rice grain).

The maximum storage interval of crop samples from harvest to analysis
for total prothioconazole-derived residues was 1240 days (40.8 months).
The degree of loss of prothioconazole-derived residues and
prothioconazole-desthio residues is not expected to exceed 30% after
40.8 months in rice samples.

For alfalfa, results from a TRR study indicate a no residue situation.
The TRR in alfalfa forage from three successive cuttings from plants
grown from seed treated with [triazole-3,5-14C] prothioconazole at a
target rate of 5 g a.i./100 kg seed and 15 g a.i./100 kg seed loading
was <0.005 ppm. The TRR in alfalfa hay from the second and third
cuttings from plants grown from seed treated with [triazole-3,5-14C]
prothioconazole at both application rates was also <0.005 ppm. Although
the TRR in alfalfa hay from the first cutting was not measured, the
percent dry matter for forage from the first cutting was measured and
when adjusted to reflect the typical percent dry matter in alfalfa hay
(89%)5 the net residues in alfalfa hay at both treatment levels are
<0.005 ppm.

For potato, results from a TRR study indicate a no residue situation for
components of the residue definition. Potato seed, treated with
[triazole-UL-14C] prothioconazole at a rate of 0.36 g ai/100 kg seed
(3.7 ppm; 1.02X the target rate of 0.36 g ai/100 kg seed), was planted
and potato was grown to maturity.  The potato raw agricultural commodity
(RAC) of tubers was collected at harvest time.  The total radioactive
residue (TRR) in the tubers was 0.0061 ppm.  The residues in tubers were
extracted and characterized.  Mainly highly polar degradation products
were found in potato; only very small amounts (5% or <0.001 ppm) of the
components of the residue definition were detected.]

>

<B. Toxicological Profile>

<	1. Acute toxicity.  [Prothioconazole exhibits very low acute oral,
dermal and inhalation toxicity. The acute oral LD50 for prothioconazole
in rats was >6200 mg/kg/day while the dermal LD50 was >2000 mg/kg/day
and the four-hour rat inhalation LC50 >4990 mg/m3. Prothioconazole was
not irritating to the eye or skin of rabbits and did not cause skin
sensitization in guinea pigs.>]

<	2. Genotoxicty. [Prothioconazole is not mutagenic. Slightly positive
and equivocal responses seen in in vitro cytogenetic and UDS assays were
negative in in vivo tests.]>

<	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. [Prothioconazole is not
considered a  primary reproductive toxicant in a two-Generation rat
reproduction study. The NOAEL for parental toxicity as well as the NOAEL
for reproductive and neonatal effects is 95.6 mg/kg bw/day. In the rat
oral developmental toxicity study the fetal NOAEL was 500 mg/kg bw/day
and the maternal NOAEL was 80 mg/kg bw/day. A dose level of 1000 mg/kg
bw/day administered to the rat by the dermal route does not elicit
developmental toxicity. In the rabbit, prothioconazole does not produce
developmental toxicity at dose levels exceeding the maximum tolerated
dose. Thus, prothioconazole is not teratogenic in either the rat or
rabbit.]>

<	4. Subchronic toxicity. [90-day feeding studies conducted in rats,
mice, and dogs showed the liver and/or kidney to be the target organs.
In these subchronic studies NOAELs were established at 100 mg/kg/day for
the rat and 25 mg/kg/day for the mouse and dog.]>

<	5. Chronic toxicity. [Prothioconazole is not carcinogenic in either
the rat or the mouse even at dose levels in the rat exceeding the
maximum tolerated dose. The liver and kidney are target organs of
prothioconazole for non-neoplastic toxicity in the rat, mouse and dog.
The lowest NOAEL established on the basis of long-term toxicity studies
is 5 mg/kg bw/day in the rat chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study and
the dog 52-week toxicity study.]>

<	6. Animal metabolism. [Metabolism and pharmacokinetic studies in the
rat demonstrate that prothioconazole is rapidly absorbed, metabolized
and eliminated. The primary metabolites included JAU6476-desthio, as
well as S- and O-glucuronides of prothioconazole.]>

<	7. Metabolite toxicology. [The major metabolite of prothioconazole in
the rat, plants and large animals is JAU6476-desthio. Therefore, a
comprehensive evaluation of the mammalian toxicity of JAU6476-desthio
has been performed.

The acute oral, dermal, and inhalation toxicity of JAU6476-desthio in
the rat is low (LD50 values: 2806/2506mg/kg [male/female], >5000mg/kg,
4-hour LC50: >5077mg/m3, respectively). It is non-irritating to skin and
only very slightly irritating to eyes and has no cutaneous sensitizing
potential by topical application.

The short and long-term oral toxicity of JAU6476-desthio has been
investigated by dietary administration in the rat, mouse and dog. The
common target organ in all 3 species is the liver. Secondary effects on
the thyroid in the rat and dog were associated with increased hepatic
enzyme induction. In the long term studies, 52 weeks in the rat and 30
weeks in the dog, the NOAEL for the rat and the dog were 1.1 and 10.1
mg/kg bw/day, respectively. JAU6476-desthio is not carcinogenic in
either the rat or the mouse. The NOAEL selected for human risk
assessment is 1.1 mg/kg bw/day established in the combined chronic
toxicity and carcinogenicity study in the rat.

JAU6476-desthio was negative for mutagenicity and genotoxicity in all in
vitro and in vivo studies both with and without metabolic activation.

In a two-generation reproduction study the maternal NOAEL was 2.7 mg/kg
bw/day and the NOAEL for reproductive and neonatal effects 10.0 mg/kg
bw/day. The main targets at the highest dose were dystocia (probably
secondary to hepatic toxicity), decreased pup viability, growth
retardation and low incidence of cleft palates.

In the developmental toxicity studies cleft palates were seen in the rat
and rabbit at the highest dose levels and supernumerary ribs in the rat
at lower dose levels. The oral NOAEL is 1 mg/kg bw/day in the rat and 2
mg/kg/day in the rabbit.

A developmental neurotoxicity study (DNT) in rats was conducted with
JAU6476-desthio as the anticipated dietary exposure is mainly to
JAU6476-desthio and not the parent. No evidence of neurotoxicity was
seen in this study, including no compound-related effects involving
neurobehavioral tests and neuropathology.  Compound-related effects were
limited to overt toxicity and developmental effects which were
consistent with effects seen in other developmental toxicity studies.
The overall NOAEL was 3.6 mg/kg bw/day.]>

<	8. Endocrine disruption. [The toxicology database for prothioconazole
is current and complete.  Studies in this database include evaluation of
the potential effects on carcinogenic, reproduction and development
effects including an evaluation of the pathology of the endocrine organs
following short- or long-term exposure. Prothioconazole is considered
not to have primary endocrine effects.]>

<C. Aggregate Exposure>

<	1. Dietary exposure. [An aggregate risk assessment was conducted for
all registered uses on barley; dried beans and peas (Crop Group 6C);
canola; peanuts; wheat; triticale; soybeans; and sugar beets; the
pending petition requesting tolerances be established on the cereal
grain crop group 15 and 16 (except sweet corn, sorghum, and rice) and
sweet corn; and this proposed petition requesting tolerances on rice,
alfalfa and potato. In actuality, rice and potato do not contribute to
the dietary burden since the TRR studies show a no residue situation.

The acute toxicity endpoint used in the acute assessment was the NOAEL
of 2.0 mg/kg/day from the prothioconazole-desthio rabbit developmental
toxicity study as described in the Agency’s HED risk assessment
memorandum on prothioconazole dated January 5, 2009. No acute endpoint
was identified for the general U.S. population; Females, 13-49 years of
age, was the only population subgroup to be included in the acute
assessment. Application of a 100x uncertainty factor results in an acute
reference dose (aRfD) of 0.02 mg/kg/day. The chronic reference dose
(cRfD) of 0.01 mg/kg/day results from application of a 100x uncertainty
factor to the NOAEL of 1.1 mg/kg/day from the rat chronic\oncogenicity
prothioconazole-desthio toxicity study.

The acute and chronic dietary assessments for combined food and water
exposure show 7.33% utilization of the aRfD by females 13-49 years and
9.0% utilization of the cRfD by the most sensitive subgroup, all
infants.  Results from the dietary exposure assessments demonstrate a
reasonable certainty that no harm to the overall U.S. population or any
population subgroup will result from the use of prothioconazole on the
above crops.]>

<	i. Food. [An acute, Tier 2 dietary (food only) risk assessment was
conducted. For the population subgroup females 13-49 years old, the
acute analysis indicates an exposure of 0.57% of the aRfD at the 95th
percentile. Results from a chronic, Tier 2 dietary (food only) risk
assessment show that the most highly exposed population subgroup is
children 1 to 2 years with an exposure equal to 1.4% of the cRfD
followed by all infants at 0.9%. Chronic exposure to the overall U.S.
population is 0.6% of the cRfD.]>

<	ii. Drinking water. [No monitoring data are available for residues of
prothioconazole in drinking water, and EPA has established no health
advisory levels or maximum contaminant levels for residues of
prothioconazole in drinking water. In order to address drinking water,
water was included in the dietary analysis for food. DEEM analyses were
performed using the upper bound estimates for the peanut and sugar beet
crop scenarios; the EDWC for the acute assessment is 29 ppb from the
peanut scenario and 13 ppb from the sugar beet scenario for the chronic
assessment (the estimated drinking water concentrations for the proposed
foliar use on rice were less than those used in recent acute and chronic
exposure assessments and so do not factor into the dietary assessment).
For the population subgroup females 13-49 years old, the acute analysis
results in an exposure of 6.76% of the aRfD. Results from a chronic,
Tier 2 dietary risk assessment indicate that the most highly exposed
population subgroup was all infants with an exposure equal to 8.1% of
the cRfD. Chronic exposure to the overall U.S. population is 2.5% of the
cRfD.]>

<	2. Non-dietary exposure. [Prothioconazole is not registered for
residential uses nor are any registrations pending for such uses.]>

<D. Cumulative Effects>

<	[Prothioconazole is a member of the conazole family of fungicides. The
cumulative effects of the primary common metabolites are being addressed
by the US Triazole Task Force.]>

<E. Safety Determination>

<	1. U.S. population. [In the Agency’s HED risk assessment memorandum
on prothioconazole dated October 13, 2006, it is stated that
quantification of acute risk to the general population including infants
and children is not required. Based on the conservative exposure
assumptions described above and on the completeness of the toxicity
data, it can be concluded that total food and drinking water exposure to
prothioconazole from all proposed uses will utilize 7.33% of the acute
RfD for females 13-49 years old and 3.1% of the chronic RfDs for the
overall U.S. population. EPA generally has no concerns for exposures
below 100% of the RfD, because the RfD represents the level at or below
which daily aggregate exposure over a lifetime will not pose appreciable
risks to human health.]>

<	2. Infants and children. [In the Agency’s HED risk assessment
memorandum on prothioconazole dated January 5, 2009, it is stated:
“There are adequate data in the prothioconazole (including
metabolites) database to characterize the potential for pre-natal or
post-natal risks to infants and children: two-generation reproduction
studies in rats; developmental studies in rats and rabbits; and a
developmental neurotoxicity study in rats.  The effects seen in these
studies suggest that offspring are more susceptible: offspring effects
were seen at levels below the LOAELs for maternal toxicity and, in
general, were of comparable or greater severity compared to the effects
observed in adults.  However, the point of departure for the most
sensitive of these studies (the rabbit developmental toxicity) is lower
than that of the other studies (2 mg/kg/day), and is based on effects
observed in the fetus, not the parent.  Therefore, the offspring are
considered to be protected and there is no need to retain the 10X FQPA
factor, and it is reduced to 1X.” EPA also stated   “No acute
endpoint was identified for the general U.S. population.  Females, 13-49
years of age, was the only population subgroup included in the acute
assessment.”

In addition to the adequacy of the toxicity database, there are also no
uncertainties with respect to the exposure database. Both the dietary
food and water exposure assessments are conservative in nature.
Additionally, there is no potential for residential exposure.

In Bayer’s chronic exposure assessment, the most highly exposed
population subgroup, all infants, utilized 9.0 % of the chronic RfD. EPA
generally has no concerns for exposures below 100% of the RfD, because
the RfD represents the level at or below which daily aggregate exposure
over a lifetime will not pose appreciable risks to human health.]>

<F. International Tolerances>

<	[Codex MRLs are not yet published; however, prothioconazole was
evaluated at both the 2008 and 2009 JMPR, so CODEX MRLs should be
established in the near future.]>

 PAGE   2

 PAGE   2


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION SAN 4092 Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request Environmental Protection Agency / Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response / Office of Solid Waste 2. OMB control number b. G None a 2050 0053 3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. x Revision of a currently approved collection c. G Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. x Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes x No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. G Three years from approval date b. x Other Specify: 1 / 31 / 2008 7. Title: Identification Listing and Rulemaking Petitions ( Final Rule for Cathode Ray Tubes)

8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) EPA ICR # 1189.16 9. Keywords Environmental Protection, Cathode Ray Tubes, Exclusion from Solid Waste 10. Abstract To encourage greater reuse and recycling of CRTs, EPA is amending the RCRA hazardous waste regulations by streamlining management requirements for CRTs sent for recycling. The information collection requirements covered in this ICR are needed to ensure that the CRTs are properly managed, and to facilitate enforcement of the regulations.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. x Federal Government c. x Not for profit institutions f. x State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 3,961 b. Total annual responses 34,424 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0 % c. Total hours requested 27,493 d. Current OMB inventory 22,074 e. Difference 5,419 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 5,419 2. Adjustment 0 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 981 c. Total annualized cost requested 981 d. Current OMB inventory 980 e. Difference 1 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 1 2. Adjustment 0 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. X Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. x Reporting 1. X On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. Q Other ( describe) 17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Marilyn Goode Phone: 703 308 8800 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( I) Why the information is being collected' ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement. Signature of Program Official Robert Dellinger, Director, Hazardous Waste Identification Division Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95 Certification Requirement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions 5 CFR 1320.9 reads " As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection of information, the agency ( through the head of the agency, the Senior Official or their designee) shall certify ( and provide a record supporting such certification) that the proposed collection of information

"( a) is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including that the information to be collected will have practical utility;

"( b) is not unnecessarily duplicative of information otherwise reasonably accessible to the agency;

"( c) reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U. S. C § 601( 6)), the use of such techniques as:

"( 1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to those who are to respond; "( 2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements; or collection of information , or any part thereof; "( 3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any part thereof;

"( d) is written using plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology and is understandable to those who are to respond;

"( e) is to be implemented in ways consistent and compatible, to the maximum extent practicable, with the existing reporting and recordkeeping practices of those who are to respond;

"( f) indicates for each recordkeeping requirement the length of time persons are required to maintain the records specified;

"( g) informs potential respondents of the information called for under § 1320.8( b)( 3); [ see below]

"( h) has been developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected, including the processing of the information in a manner which shall enhance, where appropriate, the utility of the information to agencies and the public;

"( I) uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology appropriate to the purpose for which the information is to be collected; and "( j) to the maximum extent practicable, uses appropriate information technology to reduce burden and improve data quality, agency efficiency and responsiveness to the public."

NOTE: 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3) requires that each collection of information:

"( 3) informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom the collection of information is addressed of: "( I) the reasons the information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( ii) the way such information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( iii) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the average burden of the collection ( together with a request that the public direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden); "( iv) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit ( citing authority), or mandatory ( citing authority); "( v) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any ( citing authority); and "( vi) the fact that any agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number."

OMB 83 I ( Instructions) 10/ 95


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 174 (Thursday, September 8, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55774-55775]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22831]

Vol. 76

Thursday,

No. 174

September 8, 2011

Part III

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 52

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designations of
Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Alabama, Tennessee, and
Georgia: Chattanooga and Macon; Determination of Attainment by
Applicable Attainment Date for the 1997 Annual Fine Particulate
Standards; Final Rules

Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 174 / Thursday, September 8, 2011 /
Rules and Regulations

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2011-0408-201146; FRL-9459-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and
Designations of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Alabama,
Tennessee, and Georgia: Chattanooga and Macon; Determination of
Attainment by Applicable Attainment Date for the 1997 Annual Fine
Particulate Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is determining that the Chattanooga, Alabama-Tennessee-
Georgia, fine particulate (PM2.5) nonattainment area
(hereafter referred to as ``the Chattanooga Area'') and the Macon,
Georgia PM2.5 nonattainment area (hereafter referred to as
``the Macon Area'') have attained the 1997 annual PM2.5
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) by the applicable
attainment date of April 5, 2010. The determinations of attainment were
previously finalized by EPA on May 31, 2011, for the Chattanooga Area
and June 2, 2011, for the Macon Area, and were based on quality-assured
and certified monitoring data for the 2007-2009 monitoring period. The
Chattanooga Area is comprised of Hamilton County in Tennessee, Catoosa
and Walker Counties in Georgia, and a portion of Jackson County in
Alabama. The Macon Area is comprised of Bibb County in its entirety and
a portion of Monroe County in Georgia. EPA is determining to find that
both of the above-identified areas attained the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. EPA is
finalizing these actions because they are consistent with the Clean Air
Act (CAA) and its implementing regulations.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on October 11,
2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R04-OAR-2011-0408. All documents in the docket are listed in
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for public inspection during normal
business hours at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joel Huey or Sara Waterson, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Huey's telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Mr. Huey can also be reached via electronic
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Ms. Waterson may be reached by phone at
(404) 562-9061 or via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What actions is EPA taking?
II. What is the effect of these actions?
III. What are EPA's final actions?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What actions is EPA taking?

    Based on EPA's review of the quality-assured and certified
monitoring data for 2007-2009, and in accordance with section 179(c)(1)
of the CAA and EPA's regulations, EPA is determining that the
Chattanooga and Macon Areas attained the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of April 5, 2010.
    On May 31, 2011, for the Chattanooga Area and June 2, 2011, for the
Macon Area, EPA published two final rulemakings to make determinations
of attainment to suspend the requirements for the Chattanooga and Macon
Areas to submit attainment demonstrations and associated reasonably
available control measures (RACM), reasonable further progress (RFP)
plans, contingency measures, and other planning State Implementation
Plan (SIP) revisions related to attainment of the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS so long as the Areas continue to attain the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS. See 76 FR 31239 for the final rulemaking
related to the Chattanooga Area; see 76 FR 31858 for the final
rulemaking related to the Macon Area. Those final rulemakings also
include useful background information on the PM2.5 NAAQS
relevant to the Chattanooga and Macon Areas. Today's actions make
determinations that the Chattanooga and Macon Areas attained the1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of
April 5, 2010. Today's actions are simply focused on the date by which
the areas had attaining data.
    Other specific requirements of the determinations and the rationale
for EPA's actions are explained in the notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPR) published on June 2, 2011 (76 FR 31900). The comment period
closed on July 5, 2011. No comments were received in response to the
NPR.

II. What is the effect of these actions?

    Today's actions are determinations that the Chattanooga and Macon
Areas attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date of April 5, 2010, consistent with CAA section
179(c)(1). Finalizing these actions does not constitute a redesignation
of either the Chattanooga or Macon Areas to attainment of the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS under section 107(d)(3) of the CAA.
Further, finalizing these actions does not involve approving
maintenance plans for either the Chattanooga or Macon Areas as required
under section 175A of the CAA, nor would it find that the Chattanooga
or Macon Areas have met all other requirements for redesignation. The
designation status of the Chattanooga and Macon Areas remains
nonattainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS until such
time as EPA determines that the individual area meets the CAA
requirements for redesignation to attainment and takes action to
redesignate the individual area.

III. What are EPA's final actions?

    EPA is determining, based on quality-assured and certified
monitoring data for the 2007-2009 monitoring period, that the
Chattanooga and the Macon Areas attained the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of April 5,
2010. These actions are being taken pursuant to section 179(c)(1) of
the CAA and are consistent with the CAA and its implementing
regulations.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    These actions make determinations of attainment based on air
quality, and would not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, these actions:
     Are not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

     Are certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Do 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);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not an economically significant regulatory action
based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, these 1997 PM2.5 determinations of
attainment by applicable attainment date for the Chattanooga and Macon
Areas do not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order
13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved
to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law.
    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. EPA will submit a report containing this action 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).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by November 7, 2011. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of these final rules do not affect
the finality of these actions for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. These actions may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).
    For purposes of judicial review, the two determinations approved by
today's action are severable from one another.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 18, 2011.
Beverly H. Banister,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart B--Alabama

0
2. Section 52.64 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  52.64  Determination of attainment.

    Based upon EPA's review of the air quality data for the 3-year
period 2007-2009, EPA determined that the Chattanooga, Alabama-Georgia-
Tennessee PM2.5 nonattainment area attained the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of April 5,
2010. Therefore, EPA has met the requirement pursuant to CAA section
179(c) to determine, based on the Area's air quality as of the
attainment date, whether the Area attained the standard. EPA also
determined that the Chattanooga, Alabama-Georgia-Tennessee
PM2.5 nonattainment area is not subject to the consequences
of failing to attain pursuant to section 179(d).

Subpart L--Georgia

0
3. Section 52.577 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  52.577  Determination of attainment.

    (a) Based upon EPA's review of the air quality data for the 3-year
period 2007-2009, EPA determined that the Chattanooga, Alabama-Georgia-
Tennessee PM2.5 nonattainment area attained the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of April 5,
2010. Therefore, EPA has met the requirement pursuant to CAA section
179(c) to determine, based on the Area's air quality as of the
attainment date, whether the Area attained the standard. EPA also
determined that the Chattanooga, Alabama-Georgia-Tennessee
PM2.5 nonattainment area is not subject to the consequences
of failing to attain pursuant to section 179(d).
    (b) Based upon EPA's review of the air quality data for the 3-year
period 2007-2009, EPA determined that the Macon, Georgia
PM2.5 nonattainment Area attained the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of April 5,
2010. Therefore, EPA has met the requirement pursuant to CAA section
179(c) to determine, based on the Area's air quality as of the
attainment date, whether the Area attained the standard. EPA also
determined that the Macon, Georgia PM2.5 nonattainment Area
is not subject to the consequences of failing to attain pursuant to
section 179(d).

Subpart RR--Tennessee

0
4. Section 52.2232 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2232  Determination of attainment.

    Based upon EPA's review of the air quality data for the 3-year
period 2007-2009, EPA determined that the Chattanooga, Alabama-Georgia-
Tennessee PM2.5 nonattainment Area attained the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of April 5,
2010. Therefore, EPA has met the requirement pursuant to CAA section
179(c) to determine, based on the Area's air quality as of the
attainment date, whether the Area attained the standard. EPA also
determined that the Chattanooga, Alabama-Georgia-Tennessee
PM2.5 nonattainment Area is not subject to the consequences
of failing to attain pursuant to section 179(d).

[FR Doc. 2011-22831 Filed 9-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 163 (Monday, August 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51256-51257]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20728]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9022-5]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or http://www2.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements
Filed 08/10/2015 Through 08/14/2015
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20150225, Final, FRA, FL, All Aboard Florida Intercity
Passenger Rail Project, Orlando to Miami, Florida, Review Period Ends:
09/23/2015, Contact: John Winkle<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20150226, Final, USFS, MT, Divide Travel Plan, Review Period
Ends: 09/23/2015, Contact: Erin Fryer<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20150227, Final, USFWS, CO, San Luis Valley National Wildlife
Refuge Complex, Review Period Ends: 09/23/2015, Contact: Laurie Shannon
303-236-4317.
EIS No. 20150228, Draft Supplement, GSA, VA, The Federal Bureau of
Investigation Central Records Complex, Comment Period Ends: 10/08/2015,
Contact: Courtenay Hoernemann<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20150229, Final, USFS, MT, Stonewall Vegetation Project, Review
Period Ends: 09/23/2015, Contact: David Shanley-Dillman<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20150230, Draft, BLM, NV, Coeur Rochester Mine Plan of
Operations Amendment 10 Project (POA10), Comment Period Ends: 10/08/
2015, Contact: Kathleen Rehberg<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20150231, Draft, USACE, CT, Programmatic--Long Island Sound
Dredged Material Management Plan, Comment Period Ends: 10/08/2015,
Contact: Meghan Quinn<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20150232, Draft, APHIS, PRO, Programmatic--Carcass Management
During a Mass Animal Health Emergency, Comment Period Ends: 10/20/2015,
Contact: Samantha Floyd<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20150233, Final, FERC, LA, Lake Charles Liquefaction Project,
Review Period Ends: 09/23/2015, Contact: Shannon Crosley<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20150234, Draft, BLM, UT, Moab Master Leasing Plan and Draft
Resource Management Plan Amendments, Comment Period Ends: 11/19/2015,
Contact: Brent Northrup<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20150235, Final, USFS, CO, Chimney Rock National Monument
Management Plan, Review Period Ends: 10/19/2015, Contact: Sara Brinton
970-264-1532.
EIS No. 20150236, Draft Supplement, Caltrans, CA, State Route 79
Realignment Project: Domenigoni Parkway to Gilman Springs Road, Comment
Period Ends: 10/08/2015, Contact: Aaron Burton<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Draft Supplement, NRC, NV, Supplement to the U.S. Department of
Energy's Environmental Impact

Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear
Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County,
Nevada,Draft Report for Comment (NUREG-2184), Comment Period Ends: 10/
20/2015, Contact: Christine Pineda<PHONE_NUMBER>. Prepared in accordance
with NWPA Sec.  114 and 10 CFR 51.109, which describe the NRC's NEPA
process for its review of the proposed geologic repository at Yucca
Mountain, Nevada.

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20150088, Draft, USMC, Other, Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands (CJMT) Joint Military Training, Comment Period Ends:
10/01/2015, Contact: Lori Robertson<PHONE_NUMBER>. Revision to FR Notice
Published 07/31/2015; Extending the Comment Period from 08/17/2015 to
10/01/2015.

    Dated: August 18, 2015.
Dawn Roberts,
Management Analyst, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal
Activities.
[FR Doc. 2015-20728 Filed 8-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 126 (Monday, July 3, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 30736]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13915]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0356]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Sloop Channel, Hempstead, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Wantagh State Parkway Bridge across
Sloop Channel, mile 15.4, at Hempstead, New York. This deviation is
necessary in order to facilitate an annual fireworks display and allows
the bridge to remain in the closed position.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 9 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. on July 4,
2017.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-0356, is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH''. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email James M. Moore, Bridge Management
Specialist, First District Bridge Branch, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone
212-514-4334, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The New York State Office of Parks,
Recreation, and Historic Preservation with concurrence of the bridge
owner, the New York State Department of Transportation, requested a
temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to facilitate a
public fireworks event.
    The Wantagh Parkway Bridge, mile 15.4, across Sloop Channel, has a
vertical clearance of 20 feet at mean high water and 21.8 feet at mean
low water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge operating
regulation is listed at 33 CFR 117.5.
    The temporary deviation will allow the Wantagh Parkway Bridge to
remain closed from 9 p.m. through 11:59 p.m. on July 4, 2017. The
waterway is used primarily by seasonal recreational vessels and
occasional tug/barge traffic. Coordination with waterway users has
indicated no objections to the proposed short-term closure of the draw.
    Vessels that can pass under the bridge without an opening may do so
at all times. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies. There is
no alternate route for vessels to pass.
    The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through
our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating
schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their
transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: June 27, 2017.
C.J. Bisignano,
Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017-13915 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P