[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 9, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 61424]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24715]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4078-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2012-0002]

Oklahoma; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the
State of Oklahoma (FEMA-4078-DR), dated August 22, 2012, and related
determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: September 27, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident for
this disaster has been expanded to include the Noble Wildfire.

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

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2012-24715 Filed 10-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 239 (Wednesday, December 12, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73951-73956]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29978]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-1012; FRL-9365-6]

Pyriproxyfen; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
pyriproxyfen in or on multiple commodities which are identified and
discussed later in this document. Interregional Research Project Number
4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective December 12, 2012. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before February 11, 2013,
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-2011-1012, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-
5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

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

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

C. How Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-1012 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
February 11, 2013. 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-2011-1012, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of March 14, 2012 (77 FR 15012) (FRL-9335-
9), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
1E7950) by IR-4, IR-4 Project Headquarters, 500 College Rd. East, Suite
201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.510
be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide
pyriproxyfen, 2-[1-methyl-2-(4-phenoxyphenoxy)ethoxypyridine, in or on
vegetable, bulb, group 3-07 at 0.70 parts per million (ppm); vegetable,
fruiting, group 8-10 at 0.20 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 0.30
ppm; fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 0.20 ppm; caneberry subgroup 13-07A at
1.0 ppm; bushberry subgroup 13-07B at 1.0 ppm; berry, low growing,
except strawberry, subgroup 13-07H at 1.0 ppm; and herb subgroup 19A at
50 ppm. Also, due to the establishment of the tolerances for the new
crop groups listed in this unit, the petition proposed the removal of
the following commodities as unnecessary: Vegetable, bulb, group 3,
except onion, bulb; onion, bulb; vegetable, fruiting, group 8; okra;
fruit, citrus; fruit, pome; caneberry subgroup 13-A; bushberry subgroup
13-B; cranberry; loganberry; juneberry; lingonberry; and salal. That
document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Valent USA
Corporation, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the
notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
modified the levels at which tolerances are being established for
several commodities. The reason for these changes is explained in Unit
IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    Pyriproxyfen is of low acute toxicity by oral, dermal, inhalation,
and ocular routes of exposure. Pyriproxyfen is not a skin irritant and
was negative in the dermal sensitization study in guinea pigs. Based on
repeated dose studies in mice, rats, and dogs the liver and kidney are
the principal target organs, with slight anemia occurring in rodent
species. The review of the acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies
indicates pyriproxyfen is not a neurotoxic chemical. There was no
evidence of prenatal or postnatal sensitivity or increased
susceptibility in developmental studies in rats and rabbits, and in
reproduction studies in rats. In the 2-generation reproduction toxicity
study, offspring toxicity (decreased body weight on pups during
lactation days 14 to 21) occurred in the presence of decreased body
weight in parental animals at the same dose level. An immunotoxicity
study showed no adverse effects on the immune system. No significant
systemic toxicity was

observed in either the 21-day dermal toxicity study in rats. In a 28-
day inhalation study, the Lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL)
of 1 milligram/Liter (mg/L) based on salivation in females and sporadic
decreased body weight gains in males was not considered biologically
relevant. With respect to carcinogenicity pyriproxyfen has been
classified as a ``Group E'' chemical--no evidence for carcinogenicity
to humans based on the absence of carcinogenicity in mice and rats.
Pyriproxyfen is negative for mutagenic activity in a battery of
mutagenicity studies conducted with both the parent and/or metabolites.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by pyriproxyfen as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov on pp. 28-33 in the document titled ``Pyriproxyfen.
Human Health Risk Assessment for the Request to Add Uses on Herb
Subgroup 19A, and the Expansions of Existing Crop Group Uses to
Numerous Crop Subgroups'' in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-1012.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for pyriproxyfen used for
human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.

 Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Pyriproxyfen for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Point of departure
        Exposure/scenario            and uncertainty/     RfD, PAD, LOC for     Study and toxicological effects
                                      safety factors       risk assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (Females 13-50        An appropriate endpoint attributable to a single oral dose was not available
 years of age and general              in the data base, including the developmental and reproduction toxicity
 population).                                                         studies.
                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary (All populations)  NOAEL = 35.1 mg/kg/   Chronic RfD = 0.35   Subchronic and chronic rat (co-
                                    day.                  mg/kg/day.           critical)
                                   UFA = 10X...........  cPAD = 0.35 mg/kg/   LOAEL = 141.28 mg/kg/day based on
                                   UFH = 10X...........   day.                 decreased body weight and
                                   FQPA SF = 1X........                        alterations in clinical pathology
                                                                               parameters.
Incidental oral short-term (1 to   NOAEL = 100 mg/kg/    LOC for MOE = 100..  Rat developmental toxicity
 30 days).                          day.                                       Maternal LOAEL = 300 mg/kg/day
                                   UFA = 10X...........                        based on decreased body weight,
                                   UFH = 10X...........                        body weight gain, and food
                                   FQPA SF = 1X........                        consumption, and increased water
                                                                               consumption.
Incidental oral intermediate-term  NOAEL = 35.1 mg/kg/   LOC for MOE = 100..  Subchronic and chronic rat (co-
 (1 to 6 months).                   day.                                       critical)
                                   UFA= 10X............                       LOAEL = 141.28 mg/kg/day based on
                                   UFH= 10X............                        decreased body weight and
                                   FQPA SF = 1X........                        alterations in clinical pathology
                                                                               parameters.
Dermal long-term (6 months--       Oral study NOAEL =    LOC for MOE = 100..  Subchronic and chronic rat (co-
 lifetime).                         35.1 mg/kg/day                             critical)
                                    (dermal absorption                        LOAEL = 141.28 mg/kg/day based
                                    rate = 30%.                                decreased body weight and
                                   UFA = 10X...........                        alterations in clinical pathology
                                   UFH = 10X...........                        parameters.
                                   FQPA SF = 1X........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 (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 pyriproxyfen, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing pyriproxyfen tolerances in 40
CFR 180.510. EPA assessed dietary exposures from pyriproxyfen in food
as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
    No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for
pyriproxyfen;

therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is
unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996 and 1998 Continuing Survey of Food
Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA
assumed 100 percent crop treated (PCT) and tolerance level residues.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that pyriproxyfen does not pose a cancer risk to humans.
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing
cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the
dietary assessment for pyriproxyfen. Tolerance level residues and/or
100 PCT were assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for pyriproxyfen in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of pyriproxyfen. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on the Tier 1 Rice Model and the Generic Estimated Exposure
Concentration (GENEEC) model the estimated drinking water
concentrations (EDWCs) of pyriproxyfen for chronic exposure assessments
are estimated to be 2.98 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and
0.006 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 2.98 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    Pyriproxyfen is currently registered for flea and tick control
(home environment and pet treatments) as well as products for ant and
roach control (indoor and outdoor applications). Formulations include
carpet powders, foggers, aerosol sprays, liquids (shampoos, sprays, and
pipettes for pet treatments), granules, bait (indoor and outdoor), and
impregnated materials (pet collars). EPA assessed residential exposure
using the following assumptions: Although there is the potential for
short-term residential handler dermal and inhalation exposure as well
as short or intermediate post-application exposure from the registered
uses of pyriproxyfen, there are no short-term dermal or inhalation PODs
and quantitative assessments were not conducted.
    Based on the registered use patterns, the following post-
application scenarios were assessed: Short- and intermediate-term hand-
to-mouth exposures for 1 to <2 year olds from treated carpets and
flooring and petting treated animals (shampoos, sprays, spot-on
treatments and collars); long-term hand-to-mouth exposures for 1 to <2
year olds from treated carpets and flooring and petting treated
animals; and long-term dermal exposures from treated carpets, flooring,
and pets.
    Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic
inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac/science/trac6a05.pdf.
    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 pyriproxyfen to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and pyriproxyfen does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
pyriproxyfen does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality
Protection Act Safety Factor (FQPA SF). In applying this provision, EPA
either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional
safety factors (SF) when reliable data available to EPA support the
choice of a different factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. Based on the available data,
there is no quantitative and qualitative evidence of increased
susceptibility observed following in utero pyriproxyfen exposure to
rats and rabbits or following prenatal/postnatal exposure in the 2-
generation reproduction study.
    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 pyriproxfen is complete.
    ii. There is no indication that pyriproxyfen is a neurotoxic
chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study
or additional uncertainty factors (UFs) to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence that pyriproxyfen results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to pyriproxyfen in drinking water. EPA used
similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure
of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These
assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by
pyriproxyfen.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and

residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate
MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
pyriproxyfen is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
pyriproxyfen from food and water will utilize 12% of the cPAD for
children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. A long-term post-application residential assessment was
performed for toddlers only since they are anticipated to have higher
exposures than adults from treated home environments and pets due to
their behavior patterns. The total chronic dietary and residential
aggregate MOE is 220 for children 1-2 years old. As this MOE is greater
than 100, the chronic aggregate risk does not exceed EPA's level of
concern.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Pyriproxyfen
is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term
residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is
appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with
short-term residential exposures to pyriproxyfen.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water,
and residential exposures result in an aggregate MOE of 2,000 for
children 1-2 years old, the population subgroup receiving the greatest
exposure. Because EPA's level of concern (LOC) for pyriproxyfen is a
MOE of 100 or below, this MOE is not of concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level).
    Pyriproxyfen is currently registered for uses that could result in
intermediate-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined
that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and
water with intermediate-term residential exposures to pyriproxyfen.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for
intermediate-term exposures, EPA has concluded that the combined
intermediate-term food, water, and residential exposures result in an
aggregate MOE of 720 for children 1-2 years old, the population
subgroup receiving the greatest exposure. Because EPA's LOC for
pyriproxyfen is a MOE of 100 or below, this MOE is not of concern.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, pyriproxyfen is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
    6. 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 pyriproxyfen residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (Gas Chromatography with Nitrogen
Phosphorous Detection; GC/NPD) is available to enforce the tolerance
expression.
    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has established MRLs for pyriproxyfen in or on citrus
fruit at 0.50 ppm. This MRL is the same as the tolerance being
established for pyriproxyfen on the citrus group 10-10 in the United
States. There are no Codex MRLs for the other commodities addressed by
this final rule.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-for Tolerances

    Based on calculations using the Organization for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD) MRL calculator, the Agency is
establishing the tolerance for the herb subgroup 19A at 100 ppm instead
of the proposed level of 50 ppm. In addition, the tolerance for the
citrus fruit group 10-10 is being revised to 0.5 ppm to harmonize with
Codex and the tolerance for the fruiting vegetable group 8-10 is being
revised to 0.8 ppm to harmonize with the Canadian MRL for bell peppers.
    Lastly, EPA has revised the tolerance expression to clarify:
    1. That, as provided in FFDCA section 408(a)(3), the tolerance
covers metabolites and degradates of pyriproxyfen not specifically
mentioned.
    2. That compliance with the specified tolerance levels is to be
determined by measuring only the specific compounds mentioned in the
tolerance expression.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of pyriproxyfen,
2-[1-methyl-2-(4-phenoxyphenoxy) ethoxypyridine, in or on vegetable,
bulb, group 3-07 at 0.70 ppm; vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10 at 0.80
ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 0.50 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11-10
at 0.20 ppm; caneberry subgroup 13-07A at 1.0 ppm; bushberry subgroup
13-07B at 1.0 ppm; berry, low growing, except strawberry, subgroup 13-
07H at 1.0 ppm; and the herb subgroup 19A at 100 ppm. Also, due to the
establishment of the tolerances for the new crop groups listed in this
unit, the following are being removed as unnecessary: Vegetable, bulb,
group 3, except onion, bulb; onion, bulb; vegetable, fruiting, group 8;
okra; fruit, citrus; fruit, pome; caneberry subgroup 13-A; bushberry
subgroup 13-B; cranberry; loganberry; juneberry; lingonberry; salal;
and citrus hybrids.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d)
in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule

has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final
rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order
13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule
does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval
under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor
does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898,
entitled ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16,
1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: December 4, 2012.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.510:
0
a. Revise the introductory text of paragraph (a)(1).
0
b. Remove from the table in paragraph (a)(1) the commodities:
``Bushberry subgroup 13-B''; ``Caneberry subgroup 13-A''; ``Citrus
hybrids'', ``Cranberry''; ``Fruit, citrus''; ``Fruit, pome'';
``Juneberry''; ``Lingonberry''; ``Loganberry''; ``Okra''; ``Onion,
bulb''; ``Salal''; and ``Vegetable, bulb, group 3, except onion,
bulb''; and ``Vegetable, fruiting, group 8''.
0
c. Add alphabetically the following commodities to the table in
paragraph (a)(1).
    The amendments read as follows:

Sec.  180.510  Pyriproxyfen; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. (1) Tolerances are established for residues of
pyriproxyfen, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the
commodities in the following table. Compliance with the tolerance
levels specified is determined by measuring only pyriproxyfen, 2-[1-
methyl-2-(4-phenoxyphenoxy) ethoxy]pyridine, in or on the commodity.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Berry, low growing, except strawberry, subgroup 13-07H....          1.0

                                * * * * *
Bushberry subgroup 13-07B.................................          1.0

                                * * * * *
Caneberry subgroup 13-07A.................................          1.0

                                * * * * *
Fruit, citrus, group 10-10................................          0.50
Fruit, pome, group 11-10..................................          0.20

                                * * * * *
Herb subgroup 19A.........................................        100

                                * * * * *
Vegetable, bulb, group 3-07...............................          0.70

                                * * * * *
Vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10...........................          0.80

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-29978 Filed 12-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 190 (Friday, September 30, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 60852]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25142]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3337-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

District of Columbia; Emergency and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an
emergency for the District of Columbia (FEMA-3337-EM), dated August 28,
2011, and related determinations.

DATED: Effective Date: August 28, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated August 28, 2011, the President issued an emergency declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5208 (the Stafford Act), as
follows:

    I have determined that the emergency conditions in the District
of Columbia resulting from Hurricane Irene beginning on August 26,
2011, and continuing, are of sufficient severity and magnitude to
warrant an emergency declaration under the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.
(``the Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such an emergency
exists in the District of Columbia.
    You are authorized to provide appropriate assistance for
required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the
Stafford Act, to save lives and to protect property and public
health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a
catastrophe in the designated areas. Specifically, you are
authorized to provide assistance for emergency protective measures
(Category B), including direct Federal assistance, under the Public
Assistance program. This assistance excludes regular time costs for
subgrantees' regular employees.
    Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. In order to provide Federal assistance, you are
hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these
purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal emergency
assistance and administrative expenses.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, Department
of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Kim R.
Kadesch, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating
Officer for this declared emergency.
    I do hereby determine the District of Columbia to have been
adversely affected by this declared emergency:

    Emergency protective measures (Category B), including direct
federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program for the
District of Columbia.

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

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-25142 Filed 9-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 143 (Thursday, July 27, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48358-48359]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15905]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0197; Airspace Docket No. 21-AAL-17]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of United States Area Navigation (RNAV) Route T-226;
Central, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends United States Area Navigation (RNAV) route
T-226 in the vicinity of Central, AK, in support of a large and
comprehensive T-route modernization project for the state of Alaska.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, October 5, 2023. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11
and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), all
comments received, this final rule, and all background material may be
viewed online at www.regulations.gov using the FAA Docket number.
Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are available on the website.
It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. You may also contact the Rules and
Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Roff, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it expands the availability of RNAV in Alaska and improves
the efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System
(NAS) by lessening the dependency on ground-based navigation.

History

    The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2022-0197 in the
Federal Register (87 FR 13666; March 10, 2022), amending RNAV route T-
226 in the vicinity of Central, AK, in support of a large and
comprehensive T-route modernization project for the state of Alaska.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting comments on the proposal. One positive comment was
received.
    The commenter supported the FAA's Next Generation Transportation
System (NextGen) NAS transition efforts and the proposal to remove the
waypoints (WP) not required for T-226 in the affected areas in the
State of Alaska. The commenter offered that the FAA's actions were
beneficial to improving compliance results, creating a better safety
culture, and preventing accidents along the air routes. The commentor
closed with support for the FAA's approval of the proposed action.

Incorporation by Reference

    United States Area Navigation Routes are published in paragraph
6011 of FAA Order JO 7400.11 Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual
basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA
Order JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15,
2022. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. These amendments will be published
in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas,
air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Rule

    This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending RNAV route T-226 in
the vicinity of Central, AK, in support of a large comprehensive T-
route modernization project for the state of Alaska. The amendment is
described below.
    T-226: T-226 extends between the Johnstone Point, AK, Very High
Frequency (VHF) Omnidirectional Range/Distance Measuring Equipment
(VOR/DME) and the Fort Yukon, AK, VHF Omnidirectional Range/Tactical
Air Navigation (VORTAC) navigational aid. This action removes the
FIDAL, AK; ROBES, AK; KLUNG, AK; DOZEY, AK; PAXON, AK; and DONEL, AK,
Fixes and the HEXAX, AK, WP from the route description since they are
not required to retain the route's structure. The Fixes and WP will
remain in the National Airspace System Resource database and continue
to be depicted on IFR En Route charts.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a
regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since
this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and
air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this airspace action of amending RNAV
route T-226 in the vicinity of Central, AK, qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
et seq.) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further
environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify
classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see
14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas;
Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points), and paragraph 5-
6.5i, which categorically excludes from further environmental review
the establishment of new or revised air traffic control procedures
conducted at 3,000 feet or more above ground level (AGL); procedures
conducted below 3,000 feet AGL that do not cause traffic to be
routinely routed over noise sensitive areas; modifications to currently
approved procedures conducted below 3,000 feet AGL that do not
significantly increase noise over noise sensitive areas; and increases
in minimum altitudes and landing minima. As such, this action is not
expected to result in any potentially significant environmental
impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding
Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for
factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded
action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further
analysis. Accordingly, the FAA has determined that no extraordinary
circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental
assessment or environmental impact study.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19,
2022, and effective September 15, 2022, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6011 United States Area Navigation Routes.

* * * * *

T-226 Johnstone Point, AK (JOH) to Fort Yukon, AK (FYU) [Amended]
Johnstone Point, AK (JOH)                       VOR/DME                        (Lat. 60[deg]28'51.43'' N, long. 146[deg]35'57.61'' W)
Gulkana, AK (GKN)                               VOR/DME                        (Lat. 62[deg]09'13.51'' N, long. 145[deg]26'50.51'' W)
Big Delta, AK (BIG)                             VORTAC                         (Lat. 64[deg]00'16.06'' N, long. 145[deg]43'02.09'' W)
Fort Yukon, AK (FYU)                            VORTAC                         (Lat. 66[deg]34'27.31'' N, long. 145[deg]16'35.97'' W)

* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 24, 2023.
Karen L. Chiodini,
Acting Manager, Airspace Rules and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2023-15905 Filed 7-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 133)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 38051-38055]
[DOCID:fr12jy07-23]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0167-200720 FRL-8338-9]

Approval of Implementation Plans of Mississippi: Clean Air
Interstate Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Mississippi
State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on January 16, 2007. This
revision addresses the requirements of EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR), promulgated on May 12, 2005, and subsequently revised on April
28, 2006, and December 13, 2006. EPA is proposing to determine that the
SIP revision fully implements the CAIR requirements for Mississippi.
Therefore, as a consequence of the SIP approval, EPA will also withdraw
the CAIR Federal Implementation Plans (CAIR FIPs) concerning sulfur
dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxide (NOX) annual, and
NOX ozone season emissions for Mississippi. The CAIR FIPs
for all States in the CAIR region were promulgated on April 28, 2006,
and subsequently revised on December 13, 2006.
    CAIR requires states to reduce emissions of SO2 and
NOX that significantly contribute to nonattainment of, and
interfere with maintenance of, the national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) for fine particulates and/or ozone in any downwind
state. CAIR establishes State budgets for SO2 and
NOX and requires states to submit SIP revisions that
implement these budgets in states that EPA concluded did contribute to
nonattainment in downwind states. States have the flexibility to choose
which control measures to adopt to achieve the budgets, including
participating in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs. In the
SIP revision that EPA is proposing to approve, Mississippi would meet
CAIR requirements by participating in the EPA-administered cap-and-
trade programs addressing SO2, NOX annual, and
NOX ozone season emissions.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 13, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2007-0167, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0167 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.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Heidi LeSane, 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. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The
Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2007-0167. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://www.regulations.gov
 or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI

or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an

``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information, unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters and any form of encryption and should be
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's
public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm
.

    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 in http://www.regulations.gov
 or in hard copy 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. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions concerning
today's proposal, please contact Heidi LeSane 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. The telephone number
is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. LeSane can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What Action Is EPA Proposing to Take?
II. What Is the Regulatory History of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs?
III. What Are the General Requirements of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs?
IV. What Are the Types of CAIR SIP Submittals?
V. Analysis of Mississippi's CAIR SIP Submittal
    A. State Budgets for Allowance Allocations
    B. CAIR Cap-and-Trade Programs
    C. Applicability Provisions for non-EGU NOX SIP Call
Sources
    D. NOX Allowance Allocations
    E. Allocation of NOX Allowances From Compliance
Supplement Pool
    F. Individual Opt-in Units
VI. Proposed Actions
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Action Is EPA Proposing To Take?

    EPA is proposing to approve a revision to Mississippi's SIP,
submitted on January 16, 2007. In its SIP revision, Mississippi would
meet CAIR requirements by requiring certain electric generating units
(EGUs) to participate in the EPA-administered

State CAIR cap-and-trade programs addressing SO2,
NOX annual, and NOX ozone season emissions. EPA
is proposing to determine that the SIP, as revised, will meet the
applicable requirements of CAIR. Any final action approving the SIP
will be taken by the Regional Administrator for Region 4. As a
consequence of the SIP approval, the Administrator of EPA will also
issue a final rule to withdraw the FIPs concerning SO2,
NOX annual, and NOX ozone season emissions for
Mississippi. This action will delete and reserve 40 CFR 52.1284 and 40
CFR 52.1285. The withdrawal of the CAIR FIPs for Mississippi is a
conforming amendment that must be made once the SIP is approved because
EPA's authority to issue the FIPs was premised on a deficiency in the
SIP for Mississippi. Once the SIP is fully approved, EPA no longer has
authority for the FIPs. Thus, EPA will not have the option of
maintaining the FIPs following the full SIP approval. Accordingly, EPA
does not intend to offer an opportunity for a public hearing or an
additional opportunity for written public comment on the withdrawal of
the FIPs.

II. What Is the Regulatory History of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs?

    CAIR was published by EPA on May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162). In this
rule, EPA determined that 28 States and the District of Columbia
contribute significantly to nonattainment and interfere with
maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for
fine particles (PM2.5) and/or 8-hour ozone in downwind
States in the eastern part of the country. As a result, EPA required
those upwind States to revise their SIPs to include control measures
that reduce emissions of SO2, which is a precursor to
PM2.5 formation, and/or NOX, which is a precursor
to both ozone and PM2.5 formation. For jurisdictions that
contribute significantly to downwind PM2.5 nonattainment,
CAIR sets annual State-wide emission reduction requirements (i.e.,
budgets) for SO2 and annual State-wide emission reduction
requirements for NOX. Similarly, for jurisdictions that
contribute significantly to 8-hour ozone nonattainment, CAIR sets
State-wide emission reduction requirements for NOX for the
ozone season (May 1st to September 30th). Under CAIR, States may
implement these reduction requirements by participating in the EPA-
administered cap-and-trade programs or by adopting any other control
measures.
    CAIR explains to subject States what must be included in SIPs to
address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) with regard to interstate transport with respect to the 8-hour
ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA made national findings, effective
on May 25, 2005, that the states had failed to submit SIPs meeting the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D). The SIPs were due in July 2000, 3
years after the promulgation of the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5
NAAQS. These findings started a 2-year clock for EPA to promulgate a
FIP to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D). Under CAA
section 110(c)(1), EPA may issue a FIP anytime after such findings are
made and must do so within two years, unless a SIP revision correcting
the deficiency is approved by EPA before the FIP is promulgated.
    On April 28, 2006, EPA promulgated FIPs for all states covered by
CAIR in order to ensure the emissions reductions required by CAIR are
achieved on schedule. Each CAIR State is subject to the FIPs until the
State fully adopts, and EPA approves, a SIP revision meeting the
requirements of CAIR. The CAIR FIPs require EGUs to participate in the
EPA-administered CAIR SO2, NOX annual, and
NOX ozone season trading programs, as appropriate. The CAIR
FIP SO2, NOX annual, and NOX ozone
season trading programs impose essentially the same requirements as,
and are integrated with, the respective CAIR SIP trading programs. The
integration of the FIP and SIP trading programs means that these
trading programs will work together to create effectively a single
trading program for each regulated pollutant (SO2,
NOX annual, and NOX ozone season) in all states
covered by the CAIR FIP or SIP trading program for that pollutant. The
CAIR FIPs also allow states to submit abbreviated SIP revisions that,
if approved by EPA, will automatically replace or supplement certain
CAIR FIP provisions (e.g., the methodology for allocating
NOX allowances to sources in the State), while the CAIR FIP
remains in place for all other provisions.
    On April 28, 2006, EPA published two additional CAIR-related final
rules that added the States of Delaware and New Jersey to the list of
states subject to CAIR for PM2.5 and announced EPA's final
decisions on reconsideration of five issues, without making any
substantive changes to the CAIR requirements.

III. What Are the General Requirements of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs?

    CAIR establishes State-wide emission budgets for SO2 and
NOX and is to be implemented in two phases. The first phase
of NOX reductions starts in 2009 and continues through 2014,
while the first phase of SO2 reductions starts in 2010 and
continues through 2014. The second phase of reductions for both
NOX and SO2 starts in 2015 and continues
thereafter. CAIR requires states to implement the budgets by either:
(1) Requiring EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade
programs; or (2) adopting other control measures of the State's
choosing and demonstrating that such control measures will result in
compliance with the applicable State SO2 and NOX
budgets.
    The May 12, 2005, and April 28, 2006, CAIR rules provide model
rules that states must adopt (with certain limited changes, if desired)
if they want to participate in the EPA-administered trading programs.
    With two exceptions, only states that choose to meet the
requirements of CAIR through methods that exclusively regulate EGUs are
allowed to participate in the EPA-administered trading programs. One
exception is for states that adopt the opt-in provisions of the model
rules to allow non-EGUs individually to opt into the EPA-administered
trading programs. The other exception is for states that include all
non-EGUs from their NOX SIP Call trading programs in their
CAIR NOX ozone season trading programs.

IV. What Are the Types of CAIR SIP Submittals?

    States have the flexibility to choose the type of control measures
they will use to meet the requirements of CAIR. EPA anticipates that
most states will choose to meet the CAIR requirements by selecting an
option that requires EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered CAIR
cap-and-trade programs. For such States, EPA has provided two
approaches for submitting and obtaining approval for CAIR SIP
revisions. States may submit full SIP revisions that adopt the model
CAIR cap-and-trade rules. If approved, these SIP revisions will fully
replace the CAIR FIPs. Alternatively, states may submit abbreviated SIP
revisions. These SIP revisions will not replace the CAIR FIPs; however,
the CAIR FIPs provide that, when approved, the provisions in these
abbreviated SIP revisions will be used instead of or in conjunction
with, as appropriate, the corresponding provisions of the CAIR FIPs
(e.g., the NOX allowance allocation methodology).
    A State submitting a full SIP revision may either adopt regulations
that are substantively identical to the model rules, or incorporate by
reference the model rules. CAIR provides that states

may only make limited changes to the model rules if the states want to
participate in the EPA-administered trading programs. A full SIP
revision may change the model rules only by altering their
applicability and allowance allocation provisions to:
    1. Include NOX SIP Call trading sources that are not
EGUs under CAIR in the CAIR NOX ozone season trading
program;
    2. Provide for State allocation of NOX annual or ozone
season allowances using a methodology chosen by the State;
    3. Provide for State allocation of NOX annual allowances
from the compliance supplement pool (CSP) using the State's choice of
allowed, alternative methodologies; or
    4. Allow units that are not otherwise CAIR units to opt
individually into the CAIR SO2, NOX annual, or
NOX ozone season trading programs under the opt-in
provisions in the model rules.
    An approved CAIR full SIP revision addressing EGUs' SO2,
NOX annual, or NOX ozone season emissions will
replace the CAIR FIP for that State for the respective EGU emissions.

V. Analysis of Mississippi CAIR SIP Submittal

A. State Budgets for Allowance Allocations

    The CAIR NOX annual and ozone season budgets were
developed from historical heat input data for EGUs. Using these data,
EPA calculated annual and ozone season regional heat input values,
which were multiplied by 0.15 pounds per million British thermal units
(lb/mmBtu), for phase 1, and 0.125 lb/mmBtu, for phase 2, to obtain
regional NOX budgets for 2009-2014 and for 2015 and
thereafter, respectively. EPA derived the State NOX annual
and ozone season budgets from the regional budgets using State heat
input data adjusted by fuel factors.
    The CAIR State SO2 budgets were derived by discounting
the tonnage of emissions authorized by annual allowance allocations
under the Acid Rain Program under title IV of the CAA. Under CAIR, each
allowance allocated in the Acid Rain Program for the years in phase 1
of CAIR (2010 through 2014) authorizes 0.5 ton of SO2
emissions in the CAIR trading program, and each Acid Rain Program
allowance allocated for the years in phase 2 of CAIR (2015 and
thereafter) authorizes 0.35 ton of SO2 emissions in the CAIR
trading program.
    In this action, EPA is proposing approval of Mississippi's SIP
revision that adopts the budgets established for the State in CAIR,
i.e., 17,807 (2009-2014) and 14,839 (2015-thereafter) tons for
NOX annual emissions, 8,714 (2009-2014) and 7,262 (2015-
thereafter) tons for NOX ozone season emissions and 33,763
(2010-2014) and 23,634 (2015-thereafter) tons for SO2
emissions. Mississippi's SIP revision sets these budgets as the total
amount of allowances available for allocation for each year under the
EPA-administered cap-and-trade program.

B. CAIR Cap-and-Trade Programs

    The CAIR NOX annual and ozone-season model trading rules
both largely mirror the structure of the NOX SIP Call model
trading rule in 40 CFR part 96, subparts A through I. While the
provisions of the NOX annual and ozone-season model rules
are similar, there are some differences. For example, the
NOX annual model rule (but not the NOX ozone
season model rule) provides for a CSP, which is discussed below and
under which allowances may be awarded for early reductions of
NOX annual emissions. As a further example, the
NOX ozone season model rule reflects the fact that the CAIR
NOX ozone season trading program replaces the NOX
SIP Call trading program after the 2008 ozone season and is coordinated
with the NOX SIP Call program. The NOX ozone
season model rule provides incentives for early emissions reductions by
allowing banked, pre-2009 NOX SIP Call allowances to be used
for compliance in the CAIR NOX ozone-season trading program.
In addition, states have the option of continuing to meet their
NOX SIP Call requirement by participating in the CAIR
NOX ozone season trading program and including all their
NOX SIP Call trading sources in that program.
    The provisions of the CAIR SO2 model rule are also
similar to the provisions of the NOX annual and ozone season
model rules. However, the SO2 model rule is coordinated with
the ongoing Acid Rain SO2 cap-and-trade program under CAA
title IV. The SO2 model rule uses the title IV allowances
for compliance, with each allowance allocated for 2010-2014 authorizing
only 0.50 ton of emissions and each allowance allocated for 2015 and
thereafter authorizing only 0.35 ton of emissions. Banked title IV
allowances allocated for years before 2010 can be used at any time in
the CAIR SO2 cap-and-trade program, with each such allowance
authorizing 1 ton of emissions. Title IV allowances are to be freely
transferable among sources covered by the Acid Rain Program and sources
covered by the CAIR SO2 cap-and-trade program.
    EPA also used the CAIR model trading rules as the basis for the
trading programs in the CAIR FIPs. The CAIR FIP trading rules are
virtually identical to the CAIR model trading rules, with changes made
to account for federal rather than state implementation. The CAIR model
SO2, NOX annual, and NOX ozone season
trading rules and the respective CAIR FIP trading rules are designed to
work together as integrated SO2, NOX annual, and
NOX ozone season trading programs.
    In the SIP revision, Mississippi chooses to implement its CAIR
budgets by requiring EGUs to participate in EPA-administered cap-and-
trade programs for SO2, NOX annual, and
NOX ozone season emissions. Mississippi has adopted a full
SIP revision that adopts, with certain allowed changes discussed below,
the CAIR model cap-and-trade rules for SO2, NOX
annual, and NOX ozone season emissions.

C. Applicability Provisions for Non-EGU NOX SIP Call Sources

    In general, the CAIR model trading rules apply to any stationary,
fossil-fuel-fired boiler or stationary, fossil-fuel-fired combustion
turbine serving at any time, since the later of November 15, 1990, or
the start-up of the unit's combustion chamber, a generator with
nameplate capacity of more than 25 MWe producing electricity for sale.
    States have the option of bringing in, for the CAIR NOX
ozone season program only, those units in the State's NOX
SIP Call trading program that are not EGUs as defined under CAIR. EPA
advises states exercising this option to add the applicability
provisions in the State's NOX SIP Call trading rule for non-
EGUs to the applicability provisions in 40 CFR 96.304 in order to
include in the CAIR NOX ozone season trading program all
units required to be in the State's NOX SIP Call trading
program that are not already included under 40 CFR 96.304. Under this
option, the CAIR NOX ozone season program must cover all
large industrial boilers and combustion turbines, as well as any small
EGUs (i.e. units serving a generator with a nameplate capacity of 25
MWe or less) that the State currently requires to be in the
NOX SIP Call trading program.
    Because Mississippi was not included in the NOX SIP Call
trading program, Mississippi did not have the option of expanding the
applicability provisions of the CAIR NOX ozone season
trading program.

D. NOX Allowance Allocations

    Under the NOX allowance allocation methodology in the
CAIR model trading rules and in the CAIR FIP, NOX annual,

and ozone season allowances are allocated to units that have operated
for five years, based on heat input data from a three-year period that
are adjusted for fuel type by using fuel factors of 1.0 for coal, 0.6
for oil, and 0.4 for other fuels. The CAIR model trading rules and the
CAIR FIP also provide a new unit set-aside from which units without
five years of operation are allocated allowances based on the units'
prior year emissions.
    States may establish in their SIP submissions a different
NOX allowance allocation methodology that will be used to
allocate allowances to sources in the states, if certain requirements
are met concerning the timing of submission of units' allocations to
the Administrator for recordation and the total amount of allowances
allocated for each control period. In adopting alternative
NOX allowance allocation methodologies, states have
flexibility with regard to:
    1. The cost to recipients of the allowances, which may be
distributed for free or auctioned;
    2. The frequency of allocations;
    3. The basis for allocating allowances, which may be distributed,
for example, based on historical heat input or electric and thermal
output; and
    4. The use of allowance set-asides and, if used, their size.
    Mississippi has not chosen to replace the provisions of the CAIR
NOX annual model trading rule concerning the allocation of
NOX annual allowances with its own methodology.
    Mississippi has not chosen to replace the provisions of the CAIR
NOX ozone season model trading rule concerning allowance
allocations with its own methodology.

E. Allocation of NOX Allowances from Compliance Supplement Pool

    The CAIR establishes a CSP to provide an incentive for early
reductions in NOX annual emissions. The CSP consists of
200,000 CAIR NOX annual allowances of vintage 2009 for the
entire CAIR region, and a State's share of the CSP is based upon the
projected magnitude of the emission reductions required by CAIR in that
State. States may distribute CSP allowances, one allowance for each ton
of early reduction, to sources that make NOX reductions
during 2007 or 2008 beyond what is required by any applicable State or
Federal emission limitation. States also may distribute CSP allowances
based upon a demonstration of need for an extension of the 2009
deadline for implementing emission controls.
    The CAIR annual NOX model trading rule establishes
specific methodologies for allocations of CSP allowances. States may
choose an allowed, alternative CSP allocation methodology to be used to
allocate CSP allowances to sources in the States.
    Mississippi has not chosen to modify the provisions of the CAIR
NOX annual model trading rule concerning the allocation of
allowances from the CSP. Mississippi has chosen to distribute CSP
allowances using the allocation methodology provided in 40 CFR 96.143
and has adopted this section by reference.

F. Individual Opt-In Units

    The opt-in provisions of the CAIR SIP model trading rules allow
certain non-EGUs (i.e., boilers, combustion turbines, and other
stationary fossil-fuel-fired devices) that do not meet the
applicability criteria for a CAIR trading program to participate
voluntarily in (i.e., opt into) the CAIR trading program. A non-EGU may
opt into one or more of the CAIR trading programs. In order to qualify
to opt into a CAIR trading program, a unit must vent all emissions
through a stack and be able to meet monitoring, recordkeeping, and
recording requirements of 40 CFR part 75. The owners and operators
seeking to opt a unit into a CAIR trading program must apply for a CAIR
opt-in permit. If the unit is issued a CAIR opt-in permit, the unit
becomes a CAIR unit, is allocated allowances, and must meet the same
allowance-holding and emissions monitoring and reporting requirements
as other units subject to the CAIR trading program. The opt-in
provisions provide for two methodologies for allocating allowances for
opt-in units, one methodology that applies to opt-in units in general
and a second methodology that allocates allowances only to opt-in units
that the owners and operators intend to repower before January 1, 2015.
    States have several options concerning the opt-in provisions.
States may adopt the CAIR opt-in provisions entirely or may adopt them
but exclude one of the methodologies for allocating allowances. States
may also decline to adopt the opt-in provisions at all.
    Mississippi has chosen to allow non-EGUs meeting certain
requirements to opt into the CAIR trading programs by adopting by
reference EPA's model rule provisions for opt-in units in the CAIR
SO2, CAIR NOX annual, and CAIR NOX
ozone season trading programs.

VI. Proposed Actions

    EPA is proposing to approve Mississippi's full CAIR SIP revision
submitted on January 16, 2007. Under this SIP revision, Mississippi is
choosing to participate in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs
for SO2, NOX annual, and NOX ozone
season emissions. The SIP revision meets the applicable requirements in
40 CFR 51.123(o) and (aa), with regard to NOX annual and
NOX ozone season emissions, and 40 CFR 51.124(o), with
regard to SO2 emissions. EPA is proposing to determine that
the SIP, as revised, will meet the requirements of CAIR. As a
consequence of the SIP approval, the Administrator of EPA will also
issue, without providing an opportunity for a public hearing or an
additional opportunity for written public comment, a final rule to
withdraw the CAIR FIPs concerning SO2, NOX
annual, and NOX ozone season emissions for Mississippi. This
action will delete and reserve 40 CFR 52.1284 and 40 CFR 52.1285.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely proposes to approve State law as meeting Federal requirements
and would impose no additional requirements beyond those imposed by
State law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.). Because this action proposes to approve pre-existing
requirements under State law and would not impose any additional
enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it does not contain
any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affected small
governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4).
    This proposal also does not have tribal implications because it
would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This proposed action also
does not have Federalism implications because it

would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a State rule
implementing a Federal standard and will result, as a consequence of
that approval, in the Administrator's withdrawal of the CAIR FIP. It
does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule
also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997), because it would approve a State rule implementing a Federal
Standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule would
not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

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

    Dated: July 3, 2007.
J.I. Palmer Jr.,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
 [FR Doc. E7-13567 Filed 7-11-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 36 (Wednesday, February 23, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10190-10191]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03802]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EG22-55-000.
    Applicants: Rabbitbrush Solar, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator of Rabbitbrush Solar, LLC.
    Filed Date: 2/16/22.
    Accession Number: 20220216-5168.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/9/22.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1662-001.
    Applicants: Crystal Lake Wind Energy I, LLC.
    Description: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. submits
tariff filing per 35.19a(b): Refund Report_Crystal Lake Wind I, LLC to
be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 2/16/22.
    Accession Number: 20220216-5182.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/9/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2222-001.
    Applicants: Crystal Lake Wind III, LLC.
    Description: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. submits
tariff filing per 35.19a(b): Refund Report_Crystal Lake Wind III, LLC
to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 2/16/22.
    Accession Number: 20220216-5185.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/9/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2543-001.
    Applicants: Crystal Lake Wind Energy II, LLC.
    Description: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. submits
tariff filing per 35.19a(b): Refund Report_Crystal Lake Wind II, LLC to
be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 2/16/22.
    Accession Number: 20220216-5183.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/9/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-511-005.
    Applicants: Safe Harbor Water Power Corporation.
    Description: Compliance filing: Settlement Compliance Filing to be
effective 2/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 2/16/22.
    Accession Number: 20220216-5155.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/9/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1215-002.
    Applicants: Assembly Solar I, LLC.
    Description: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. submits
tariff filing per 35.19a(b): Refund Report_Assembly Solar I, LLC to be
effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 2/16/22.
    Accession Number: 20220216-5180.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/9/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-323-001.
    Applicants: Exelon Generation Company, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Constellation Energy Generation,
LLC submits tariff filing per 35: Compliance Filing for Nuclear
Operating Services Agreements to be effective 2/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/16/22.
    Accession Number: 20220216-5109.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/9/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-325-001.
    Applicants: Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing for NOSA
Certificate of Compliance to be effective 2/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/16/22.
    Accession Number: 20220216-5111.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/9/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-326-001.
    Applicants: Exelon FitzPatrick, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Constellation FitzPatrick, LLC
submits tariff filing per 35: Compliance Filing for NOSA Certificate of
Concurrence to be effective 2/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/16/22.
    Accession Number: 20220216-5115.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/9/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-327-001.
    Applicants: Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing for NOSA
Certificate of Concurrence to be effective 2/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/16/22.
    Accession Number: 20220216-5118.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/9/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-329-001.
    Applicants: R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing for NOSA
Certificate of Concurrence to be effective 2/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/16/22.
    Accession Number: 20220216-5120.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/9/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1057-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2022-02-16_SA 3394 UEC-Blue
Bird Solar 1st Rev GIA (J817) to be effective 2/4/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/16/22.
    Accession Number: 20220216-5046.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/9/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1058-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2022-02-16_SA 3475 ATXI-City
of Roses Wind Energy 1st Rev GIA (J848) to be effective 2/8/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/16/22.
    Accession Number: 20220216-5048.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/9/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1059-000.
    Applicants: New Market Solar ProjectCo 1, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Certificate of Concurrence to
be effective 2/17/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/16/22.
    Accession Number: 20220216-5059.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/9/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1060-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: ISO New England Inc., submitted a Petition for a
Temporary Tariff Waiver with a request for Shortened Comment Period and
Expedited Action.
    Filed Date: 2/15/22.
    Accession Number: 20220215-5231.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/22/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1061-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to ISA No. 4311,
Queue No. AE1-035 (amend) to be effective 2/24/2020.
    Filed Date: 2/16/22.
    Accession Number: 20220216-5091.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/9/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1062-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2022-02-16_Improve the
Accuracy of the Forecast Maximum Limit for DIR to be effective 4/18/
2022.
    Filed Date: 2/16/22.
    Accession Number: 20220216-5110.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/9/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1063-000.
    Applicants: AEP Texas Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: AEPTX-Appaloosa Run Wind 1st
A&R GIA to be effective 2/9/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/16/22.
    Accession Number: 20220216-5117.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/9/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1064-000.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Rate Schedule No. 217
Exhibit B Revisions to be effective 4/18/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/16/22.
    Accession Number: 20220216-5141.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/9/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1065-000.
    Applicants: Rabbitbrush Solar, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Market-Based Rate Application
and Request for Expedited Action to be effective 2/17/2022.

    Filed Date: 2/16/22.
    Accession Number: 20220216-5189.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/9/22.

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

    Docket Numbers: ES22-27-000.
    Applicants: Evergy Missouri West, Inc.
    Description: Supplement to Application Under Section 204 of the
Federal Power Act for Authorization to Issue Securities of Evergy
Missouri West, Inc.
    Filed Date: 2/15/22.
    Accession Number: 20220215-5233.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/25/22.

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

    Dated: February 16, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-03802 Filed 2-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P