[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 51 (Friday, March 15, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16452-16456]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06072]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2010-0406; FRL-9790-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; North Dakota;
Regional Haze State Implementation Plan; Federal Implementation Plan
for Interstate Transport of Pollution Affecting Visibility and Regional
Haze; Reconsideration

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On April 6, 2012, EPA published a final rule partially
approving and partially disapproving a North Dakota State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal addressing regional haze submitted
by the Governor of North Dakota on March 3, 2010, along with SIP
Supplement No. 1 submitted on July 27, 2010, and part of SIP Amendment
No. 1 submitted on July 28, 2011. The Administrator subsequently
received a petition requesting EPA to reconsider certain provisions in
the final rule. Specifically, the petition raised several objections to
EPA's approval of the State's best available retrofit technology (BART)
emission limits for nitrogen oxides (NOX) for Milton R.
Young Station Units 1 and 2 and Leland Olds Station Unit 2, which are
coal-fired power plants in North Dakota.
    In this action, EPA is initiating the reconsideration of its
approval of the NOX BART limits for these units, proposing
to affirm its approval of these limits, and requesting comment on this
proposal. We are not reconsidering or requesting comment on any other
provisions of the final rule.

DATES: Comments: Comments must be received on or before May 14, 2013
unless a public hearing is held, which would extend the comment period
(see below).
    Public Hearing: If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing by April 8, 2013, a public hearing will be held in May
2013 in Bismarck, North Dakota. If a public hearing is held, the record
for this action will remain open for 30 days after the hearing to
accommodate submittal of information related to a public hearing and
any other comments on this action, and EPA will publish a document in
the Federal Register extending the comment period. For more information
on a public hearing and requests to speak, see the General Information
section of this preamble.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2010-0406, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> (please alert the individual listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section if you are faxing
comments).
     Mail: Director, Air Program, Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202-1129.
     Hand Delivery: Director, Air Program, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only accepted Monday
through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding federal holidays.
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-
2010-0406. 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 information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. 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 email comment directly to EPA, without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, 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, any form of encryption, and 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 docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy
of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding
federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gail Fallon, EPA Region 8, at (303)
312-6281, or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    A. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
    B. What information should I know about a public hearing?
II. Background
III. Today's Action
    A. Reconsideration and Proposal To Affirm
    B. Rationale for Our Proposal To Affirm
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
     The word Act or initials CAA mean or refer to the Clean
Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
     The initials ASOFA mean or refer to advanced separated
overfire air.
     The initials BACT mean or refer to best available control
technology.
     The initials BART mean or refer to best available retrofit
technology.
     The initials EGU mean or refer to electric generating
unit.
     The words we, us or our or the initials EPA mean or refer
to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
     The initials FIP mean or refer to federal implementation
plan.
     The initials LOS mean or refer to Leland Olds Station.
     The initials MRYS mean or refer to Milton R. Young
Station.
     The words North Dakota and State mean the State of North
Dakota unless the context indicates otherwise.
     The initials NOX mean or refer to nitrogen
oxides.
     The initials PSD mean or refer to prevention of
signification deterioration.
     The initials SCR mean or refer to selective catalytic
reduction.
     The initials SIP mean or refer to state implementation
plan.
     The initials SNCR mean or refer to selective non-catalytic
reduction.

I. General Information

A. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    b. Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

B. What information should I know about a public hearing?

    EPA will hold a public hearing on today's document only if it
receives a request to present oral testimony on the issues addressed in
today's document by April 8, 2013. Any person wishing to present oral
testimony should notify Ms. Gail Fallon at<PHONE_NUMBER> by 5 p.m.
mountain time on April 8, 2013. If a public hearing is held, it will be
held in May 2013 in Bismarck, North Dakota. We will post information on
the specifics on our Web site at http://www.epa.gov/region8/air/ and by
publishing a Federal Register document at least 15 days before the date
of the hearing. The document announcing a hearing would also extend the
public comment period for 30 days following the date of the public
hearing. A public hearing would provide interested parties the
opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning this
document.
    Interested parties may also submit written comments, as discussed
in the proposal. Written statements and supporting information
submitted during the comment period will be considered with the same
weight as any oral comments and supporting information presented at a
public hearing. We will not respond to comments during a public
hearing, may limit oral testimony to five minutes, and will not provide
equipment for showing overhead slides or computerized slide
presentations. When we publish our final action, we will provide
written responses to all oral and written comments received on our
proposal.

II. Background

    On March 3, 2010, the State of North Dakota submitted a regional
haze SIP submittal for approval into the North Dakota SIP.\1\ The SIP
included the State's NOX BART determinations for Milton R.
Young Station (MRYS) Units 1 and 2 and Leland Olds Station (LOS) Unit
2. Based on its conclusion that selective non-catalytic reduction
(SNCR) plus advanced separated overfire air (ASOFA) represented BART at
these units, the State adopted NOX BART limits of 0.36,
0.35, and 0.35 pounds per million British thermal units (lb/MMBtu),
respectively, on a 30-day rolling average basis. The State rejected
selective catalytic reduction (SCR), a more effective NOX
control technology, as BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For a full discussion of regional haze requirements, please
see our proposal at 76 FR 58574, 58576.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our proposed action, we proposed to disapprove the State's
NOX BART determinations for these units. See 76 FR 58570,
58573 (September 21, 2011). In our final rule, we changed our position
and approved the State's NOX BART determinations for these
units. 77 FR 20894, 20897 (April 6, 2012). We based our change on a
December 21, 2011, U.S. District Court decision that was issued after
the close of the public comment period. Id. at 20897-20898.
    On June 4, 2012, Earthjustice, on behalf of the National Parks
Conservation Association and the Sierra Club, submitted a petition for
reconsideration of our final rule under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA
requesting that EPA reconsider its approval of the State's
NOX BART determinations for MRYS Units 1 and 2 and LOS Unit
2. The petition asserts that the environmental groups were unable to
raise their objections to EPA's reliance on the District Court decision
during the comment period because of the timing of that decision and
that their objections are of central relevance to EPA's final rule
because EPA relied on the District Court decision in explaining the
basis for its final rule. In a letter to Earthjustice dated November
19, 2012, EPA granted reconsideration of its final rule in order to
allow for public comment on the specific issues raised in the petition.
In that letter, we indicated that we would publish a notice of proposed
rulemaking to address the State's NOX BART determinations
and limits for the three units as part of a reasonable progress
analysis.

III. Today's Action

A. Reconsideration and Proposal To Affirm

    EPA is initiating the reconsideration of its approval of the
State's NOX BART determination and limits for MRYS Units 1
and 2 and LOS Unit 2 and proposing to affirm its approval of the
determination and limits. We are not reconsidering or requesting
comment on any other provisions of the final rule.

B. Rationale for Our Proposal To Affirm

    On July 27, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the District of North
Dakota entered a consent decree between EPA, the State, and Minnkota
Power Cooperative (``Minnkota''). The consent decree resulted from an
enforcement action that EPA and the State brought against Minnkota for
alleged violations of prevention of significant deterioration (PSD)
permitting requirements at MRYS Units 1 and 2. The consent decree
called for North Dakota to make a best available control technology
(BACT) determination for NOX for MRYS Units 1 and 2 and
provided a dispute resolution procedure in the event of disagreement
regarding the BACT determination.
    In November 2010, North Dakota determined BACT for NOX
to be limits of 0.36 lb/MMBtu for MRYS Unit 1 and 0.35 lb/MMBtu for
MRYS Unit 2 based on the use of SNCR technology, with separate limits
during startup. In reaching this decision, North Dakota eliminated SCR
as BACT based on its finding that SCR was not technically feasible to
control emissions from an electric generating unit (EGU) burning North
Dakota lignite coal. In particular, North Dakota noted that no SCR has
ever been employed on an EGU burning North Dakota lignite, that North
Dakota lignite has unique properties that have the potential to quickly
degrade the SCR catalyst, and that no catalyst vendor supplied with the
specifications for the coal at MRYS Units 1 and 2 would provide a
guarantee of catalyst life without first conducting slipstream or pilot
tests at MRYS.
    EPA disagreed with North Dakota's findings and the selection of
SNCR as BACT and initiated the dispute resolution process under the
consent decree. Under the consent decree, the court was to uphold North
Dakota's BACT determination unless the disputing party was able to
demonstrate that North Dakota's decision was unreasonable.
    On December 21, 2011, following briefing by the parties, and
consideration of North Dakota's record for its BACT determination, the
court determined that EPA had not demonstrated that North Dakota's
findings were unreasonable.\2\ The court decided that North Dakota,
based on the administrative record for its BACT determination, had a
reasonable basis for concluding that SCR is not technically feasible
for treating North Dakota lignite at MRYS. Id. The court upheld North
Dakota's determination that SNCR is BACT. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Stay and Motion for
Dispute Resolution, United States, et al., v. Minnkota Power
Cooperative, Inc., et al., United States District Court for the
District of North Dakota, Southwestern Division, Civil Action No.
1:06-cv-034, Docket EPA-R08-OAR-2010-0406-0365.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two critical principles expressed in our BART guidelines\3\ are
relevant here. First, as part of a BART analysis, technically
infeasible control options

are eliminated from further review. For BART, EPA's criteria for
determining whether a control option is technically infeasible are
substantially the same as the criteria used for determining technical
infeasibility in the BACT context. 70 FR 39165; EPA's ``New Source
Review Workshop Manual,'' pages B.17-B.22.\4\ In the BART context, a
technology is feasible if it is available and applicable. 70 FR 39165.
A technology is available if it can be obtained through commercial
channels. An available technology is applicable if it can reasonably be
installed and operated on the source under consideration.Id. The BACT
analysis for technical feasibility employs the same approach. It, too,
uses the concepts of availability and applicability and defines those
terms in the same manner as the BART guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Among other things, EPA's BART guidelines, codified at 40
CFR part 51, appendix Y, describe a set of steps for determining
BART. CAA section 169A(b)(2) requires that BART be determined
pursuant to the BART guidelines for power plants with a total
generating capacity over 750 megawatts. With respect to other BART
sources, the BART guidelines reflect EPA's interpretations regarding
certain key principles related to BART, including the two principles
described in the text.
    \4\ See docket EPA-R08-OAR-2010-0406-0038.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second critical principle is that states generally may rely on
a BACT determination for a source for purposes of determining BART for
that source, unless new technologies have become available or best
control levels for recent retrofits have become more stringent. 70 FR
39164. As a general rule, the selection of a recent BACT level as BART
is the equivalent of selecting the most stringent level of control, and
consideration of the five statutory BART factors becomes unnecessary.
    In deciding our challenge to the information and analyses relied
upon by North Dakota, the U.S. District Court upheld North Dakota's
recent BACT determination based on the same technical feasibility
criteria that apply in the BART context. In light of the court's
decision and the views we have expressed in our BART guidelines on the
relationship of BACT to BART, we concluded in our final rule that it
would be inappropriate to proceed with our proposed disapproval of SNCR
as BART and our proposed federal implementation plan (FIP) to impose
SCR at MRYS Units 1 and 2 and LOS Unit 2. 77 FR 20898. While LOS Unit 2
was not the subject of the BACT determination, the same reasoning that
applies to MRYS Units 1 and 2 also applies to LOS Unit 2. It is the
same type of boiler burning North Dakota lignite coal, and North
Dakota's views regarding technical infeasibility that the U.S. District
Court upheld in the MRYS BACT case apply to it as well.
    While we do not view the U.S. District Court's decision regarding
technical infeasibility as legally binding concerning our evaluation of
the State's BART determinations at MRYS Units 1 and 2 and LOS Unit 2,
we find it appropriate, under the unique circumstances involved here,
to accord substantial weight to the District Court's decision and the
State's BACT determination. The District Court evaluated competing
arguments advanced by the State, Minnkota, and EPA, as well as an
extensive record,\5\ and concluded that the State had not reached an
unreasonable conclusion about technical feasibility. The District Court
affirmed the State's choice of SNCR plus ASOFA as BACT. Our BART
guidelines indicate that recent BACT determinations generally may be
considered BART without further analysis. Based on these facts, we are
not acting arbitrarily or capriciously, or unreasonably, in determining
that the State's selection of SNCR plus ASOFA as BART at MRYS Units 1
and 2 and LOS Unit 2 is reasonable and should be approved.\6\ We note
that evaluations of technical feasibility often change over time and
that we may reach a different conclusion about the technical
feasibility of SCR at these plants in the future as part of a
reasonable progress analysis. The regional haze program requires
additional reasonable progress reviews over time on the multi-year path
for states to reach the ultimate visibility goal of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ We note that the State submitted the record from the BACT
proceeding to us on July 28, 2011 as a SIP revision and again during
the comment period on our September 21, 2011 notice of proposed
rulemaking on the State's regional haze SIP.
    \6\ The associated BART limits are 0.36 lb/MMBtu for MRYS Unit
1, 0.35 lb/MMBtu for MRYS Unit 2, and 0.35 lb/MMBtu for LOS Unit 2,
on a 30-day rolling average basis. The SIP contains separate limits
for MRYS Units 1 and 2 during startup of 2070.1 and 3995.6 pounds
per hour, respectively, on a 24-hour rolling average basis. See SIP
section 7.4.2, p. 74.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    This action would merely approve state law as meeting federal
requirements and would impose no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. In this reconsideration, EPA is proposing to
affirm its prior approval of North Dakota SIP requirements for two
sources in North Dakota. This type of action is exempt from review
under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Because the action applies to
just two facilities, the Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's action on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this action on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In this
reconsideration, EPA is proposing to affirm its prior approval of North
Dakota SIP requirements for two sources in North Dakota. The proposed
action, if finalized, merely would approve state law as meeting federal
requirements and would impose no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. We continue to be interested in the potential
impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on
issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2
U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires federal agencies, unless prohibited by law,
to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and
tribal governments and the private sector. The action imposes no
enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the
private sector. In this reconsideration, EPA is proposing to affirm its
prior approval of North Dakota SIP requirements for two sources in
North Dakota. The proposed

action, if finalized, merely would approve state law as meeting federal
requirements and would impose no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law.
    This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203
of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Again, in this
reconsideration, EPA is proposing to affirm its prior approval of North
Dakota SIP requirements for two sources in North Dakota. The proposed
action, if finalized, merely would approve state law as meeting federal
requirements and would impose no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action 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,
because, if finalized, it merely would approve state law as meeting
federal requirements and would impose no additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply
to this action. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent
with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and state and
local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this action
from state and local officials.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 because it does not impose substantial direct
compliance costs and does not preempt tribal law. In this
reconsideration, EPA is proposing to affirm its prior approval of North
Dakota SIP requirements for two sources in North Dakota. The proposed
action, if finalized, merely would approve state law as meeting federal
requirements and would impose no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this rule. EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this action
from tribal officials.

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

    This action is not subject to EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) because it implements specific standards established by Congress
in statutes. In addition, it is not an economically significant
regulatory action because it applies to only two facilities and merely
proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements; it would
impose no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
This action would not present a disproportionate health or safety risk
to children.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.
    VCS are inapplicable to this action because application of those
requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    We have determined that this action, if finalized, will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population. The action, if finalized, merely would approve state
law as meeting federal requirements and would impose no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxides, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide,
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: March 8, 2013.
Bob Perciasepe,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013-06072 Filed 3-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


	UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                            WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

                              									OFFICE OF
                          								CHEMICAL SAFETY AND
                         								POLLUTION PREVENTION

MEMORANDUM

Date:		7-MAR-2013

SUBJECT:	Imidacloprid:  Section 3 Requests for Use on Oyster Beds.

PC Code:  129099
DP Barcode:  D400189
Decision No.:  461091
Registration No.:  xxx-xxx, xxx-xxx, 264-758
Petition No.:  2E7988
Regulatory Action:  Section 3 Registration
Risk Assessment Type:  NA
Case No.:  7605
TXR No.:  NA
CAS No.:  138261-41-3
MRID No.:  48741901
40 CFR:  §180. 472

FROM:	Jennifer R. Tyler, Chemist
		Risk Assessment Branch 1 (RAB1)
		Health Effects Division (HED; 7509P)

THROUGH:	George F. Kramer, Ph.D., Branch Senior Chemist
		RAB1/HED (7509P)

TO:		Sidney Jackson/Barbara Madden, RM Team 05
      Registration Division (RD; 7505P)

Executive Summary

The Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4) has submitted a petition (PP# 2E7988) for the use of imidacloprid (1-[(6-chloro-3-pyridinyl)methyl]-N-nitro-2-imidazolidinimine) on oyster beds to control burrowing shrimp.  IR-4 has requested to add this use to the following labels:  Protector 0.5G [a granular (G) product containing 0.5% imidacloprid as the active ingredient (ai); EPA Reg. No. xxx-xxx], and Protector 2F [a flowable concentrate (F) formulation containing 21.4% imidacloprid as the ai; EPA Reg. No. xxx-xxx).  In conjunction with this petition, tolerances have been requested for the combined residues of imidacloprid and its metabolites containing the 6-chloropyridinyl moiety, all expressed as the parent, in/on fish at 0.05 ppm, and fish-shellfish, mollusc at 0.05 ppm.

The nature of imidacloprid residues in plants and livestock is adequately understood.  The residue of concern in plants and livestock is imidacloprid and its metabolites containing the 6-chloropyridinyl moiety, all expressed as the parent, as specified in 40 CFR §180.472.

Adequate enforcement methods are available for determination of imidacloprid residues of concern in plant [Bayer gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) Method 00200] and livestock commodities (Bayer GC/MS Method 00191).  These methods have undergone successful EPA petition method validations (PMVs), and the registrant has fulfilled the remaining requirements for additional raw data, method validation, independent laboratory validation (ILV), and an acceptable confirmatory method [high-performance liquid chromatography/ultraviolet (HPLC/UV) Method 00357] (Memos, F. Griffith, 6/18/93, D187911; 6/1/94, D202113; 6/8/94, D200233; 6/8/95, D213252; and 12/18/95, D221591).  In the magnitude of the residue in oyster study, oyster meat samples were analyzed for residues of imidacloprid using a GC/MS method that is derived from the tolerance-enforcement method.  The method was verified on oyster meat prior to and concurrent with sample analysis and is considered adequate based on acceptable recovery data.  The fortification levels used in method validation and concurrent method recovery are adequate to bracket residues found in the submitted crop field trials.

Bayer Corporation previously submitted adequate multiresidue (MRM) recovery data for imidacloprid and the metabolites 5-hydroxy imidacloprid, imidacloprid olefin, des nitro imidacloprid, and 6-chloronicotinic acid (6-CNA) through Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Protocols A through E (Memos, F. Griffith, 6/18/93, D187911; 7/15/93, D193027; 6/8/94, D200233; and 6/22/94, D194206).  Imidacloprid and its metabolites were not recoverable by these methods.  The results of the MRM testing for imidacloprid were forwarded to FDA for inclusion in the Pesticide Analytical Method Volume I (PAM I) (Memo, F. Griffith, 7/15/93, D193005).

The available storage stability data are adequate to support the submitted magnitude of residue in oyster meat study.  The maximum storage interval from collection to extraction was 112 days (3.7 months) from collection to analysis; including 8 days between extraction and analysis.  Adequate storage stability data are available indicating that residues of imidacloprid and 6-CNA are stable in oyster meat at -15C for at least 112 days and 119 days, respectively.  Residues of imidacloprid have been shown to be stable in a variety of raw agricultural commodities (RACs) for up to 2 years (~728 days) of storage (Memo, F. Griffith, 6/8/95, PP#5F4480).  Analysis of samples from the [14]C-imidacloprid plant metabolism studies for corn, cotton, apples, and potatoes showed no loss of imidacloprid and its major metabolites during a period of 2 years of frozen storage (Memo, F. Griffith, 9/21/93, D185148).

No magnitude of the residue in fish or nature of the residue in fish studies were submitted in support of the proposed use.  However, the registrant recently submitted a waiver request for both studies.  The request was presented to the HED Science Advisory Council for Chemistry (ChemSAC) on 23-FEB-2011, and the ChemSAC agreed with the rationale for the waiver (ChemSAC Minutes).  Therefore, data demonstrating the magnitude of the residue or nature of the residue in fish are not necessary to support of the proposed use on oyster beds.  The ChemSAC determined that the proposed tolerance for residues of imidacloprid and its metabolites containing the 6-chloropyridinyl moiety, all expressed as the parent, in/on fish at 0.05 ppm is appropriate.

The submitted magnitude of the residue study in oysters was conducted in accordance with OPPTS Guideline 860.1400, and the data are adequate to support the proposed use.  Total residues of imidacloprid were less than limit of quantitation [LOQ, defined as the lowest level of method validation, LLMV (0.05 ppm)] in/on oyster meat harvested 26-86 days following either a single application of Mallot[(R)] 0.5G at an application rate of 0.50 lb ai/A; or Mallot 2F[(R)] at an application rate of 2.0 lb ai/A.  Samples were analyzed for total imidacloprid residues using an acceptable method, and the study is supported by adequate storage stability data.  For oysters, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) tolerance-calculation procedures could not be used to calculate a possible tolerance as residues of imidacloprid were <LOQ in/on all samples of oyster meat.  Therefore, the tolerance of 0.05 ppm for fish-shellfish, mollusc is appropriate (see Section 860.1550 Proposed Tolerances).

Regulatory Recommendations and Residue Chemistry Deficiencies

HED concludes that the residue chemistry database is sufficient for unconditional registration and establishment of permanent tolerances for imidacloprid in or on the commodities listed below.

a) General.  Tolerances are established for residues of the insecticide imidacloprid, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in the table below.  Compliance with the tolerance levels specified below is to be determined by measuring only the sum of imidacloprid (1-[6-chloro-3-pyridinyl)methyl]-N-nitro-2-imidazolidinimine) and its metabolites containing the 6-chloropyridinyl moiety, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of imidacloprid, in or on the following commodities:

            Fish	0.05 ppm
            Fish-shellfish, mollusc	0.05 ppm

A human-health risk assessment for imidacloprid is forthcoming.

Background

Imidacloprid is an insecticide registered for uses on a variety of crops for the control of aphids, cucumber beetles, and whiteflies (including sweet potato or silverleaf whitefly).  Imidacloprid is a member of the pyridylmethylamine class of compounds.  Its mode of action is the disruption of the nervous system by acting as an inhibitor at nicotinic acetylcholine receptors.  Imidacloprid blocks the signals that are induced by acetylcholine at the post-synaptic membrane, resulting in normal nerve function impairment.

Tolerances are currently established for the combined residues of imidacloprid and its metabolites containing the 6-chloropyridinyl moiety, all expressed as the parent, under 40 CFR §180.472 in/on various plant and livestock commodities.  Indirect or inadvertent tolerances are established as a result of application of the pesticide to growing crops and other non-food crops under 40 CFR §180.472(d).  The nomenclature and physicochemical properties of imidacloprid are presented below in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1.  Test Compound Nomenclature.
Chemical Structure

Common Name
Imidacloprid
Company experimental name
Imidacloprid
IUPAC name
(EZ)-1-(6-chloro-3-pyridylmethyl)-N-nitroimidazolidin-2-ylideneamine
CAS name
1-[(6-chloro-3-pyridinyl)methyl]-N-nitro-2-imidazolidinimine
CAS #
138261-41-3
End-use products/(EP)
Protector 2F (EPA Reg. No. xxx-xxx)
Protector 0.5G (EPA Reg. No. xxx-xxx)

Table 2.  Physicochemical Properties of the Technical Grade Test Compound.
Parameter
Value
Reference
Melting point
144[o]C
                             The Pesticide Manual
                            Twelfth Edition (2000)
pH
5 to 11

Specific gravity
1.54 (@ 23[o]C)

Water solubility (g/L at 20[o]C)
0.61

Solvent solubility (g/L at 20[o]C)
Dichloromethane: 55, Isopropanol: 1.2, Toluene: 0.68, n-hexane: < 0.1

Vapor pressure (mPa at 20[o]C)
4 x 10[-7]

Octanol/water partition coefficient [Log(KOW)]
0.57 (21[o]C)

UV/visible absorption spectrum
Not provided.

860.1200 Directions for Use

The petitioner has submitted draft labels for the Protector 0.5G (EPA Reg. No. xxx-xxx), and Protector 2G (EPA Reg. No. xxx-xxx).  A summary of the proposed use patterns is detailed in Table 3.

Table 3. Summary of Proposed Directions for Use of Imidacloprid.
                                   Use Site
                           Trade Name (EPA Reg. No.)
                             Application Equipment
                                  App.  Rate
                                   (lb ai/A)
                            Max. Seasonal App. Rate
                                   (lb ai/A)
                                    PHI[1]
                                    (days)
                                  Max. # App.
                                     Min.
                                    GPA[2]
                                    RTI[3]
                                    (days)
                                  Oyster beds
                           Protector 0.5G (xxxxx-xx)
 Drop/rotary spreader
 Tractor-drawn spreader
 Belly grinder
 Helicopter
                                      0.5
                                      0.5
                                      30
                                       1
                                      NA
                                      NA
                     (only 1 treatment per acre per year)

                           Protector 0.5F (xxxxx-xx)
 Groundboom
 Helicopter
 Backpack
                                      0.5
                                      0.5
                                      30
                                       1
                                  ground:  5
                                    air:  2

Restrictions:
   * Not for sale to any persons other than a member of the Willapa-Greys Harbor Oyster Growers Association.
   * A single application/year is allowed.
   * No adjuvants or surfactants allowed.
   * Aerial applications must be made on beds exposed at low tide.
   * Applications from a floating platform or boat may be made under water using a calibrated granular applicator.
   * All application must be made between April 15 and December 15.  Do not apply aerially during Federal Holidays.
   * During aerial applications, all public access areas and public boat launches within (1/4) mile radius of bed shall be posted.
1. PHI = pre-harvest interval.
2. GPA = gallons of water per acre.
3. RTI = retreatment interval.

HED Conclusions:  The use directions provided by the petitioner are adequate to allow evaluation of the residue data relative to the proposed use of imidacloprid on oyster beds to control ghost shrimp.

860.1300 Nature of the Residue - Plants and Livestock

Data concerning the metabolism of imidacloprid in apples, potatoes, tomatoes, eggplant, cottonseed, field corn, tobacco, ruminants, and poultry have been submitted and reviewed (Memos, F. Griffith, 9/20/93, DP# 185148; 6/8/94, DP# 200233; and 2/29/96, DP# 217632).  The results of the aforementioned plant and livestock metabolism studies were presented to the HED Metabolism Assessment Review Committee (MARC) on 6/22/93 (Memo, F. Griffith, 6/25/93, TXR#: 0050886).  The nature of imidacloprid residues in plants and livestock is adequately understood.  The residue of concern in plants and livestock is imidacloprid and its metabolites containing the 6-chloropyridinyl moiety, all expressed as the parent, as specified in 40 CFR §180.472.

860.1340 Residue Analytical Methods

Adequate enforcement methods are available for determination of imidacloprid residues of concern in plant (Bayer GC/MS Method 00200) and livestock commodities (Bayer GC/MS Method 00191).  These methods have undergone successful EPA PMVs, and the registrant has fulfilled the remaining requirements for additional raw data, method validation, ILV, and an acceptable confirmatory method (HPLC/UV Method 00357) (Memos, F. Griffith, 6/18/93, D187911; 6/1/94, D202113; 6/8/94, D200233; 6/8/95, D213252; and 12/18/95, D221591).  The limit of detection (LOD) and LOQ for the GC/MS Method 00200 are 0.01 and 0.05 ppm, respectively, in plant commodities.

In the magnitude of the residue in oyster study, oyster meat samples were analyzed for residues of imidacloprid using a GC/MS method entitled "Working Analytical Method for the Determination of Total Residues of Imidacloprid in Oysters," which is a modification of Bayer Method 00191 M001-Reformatted.  In the method, imidacloprid and all metabolites containing chloropyridine moiety are oxidized into 6-CNA, which is then converted into trimethylsilyl ester prior to quantitation using GC/MS.  For imidacloprid, based on the recoveries of samples fortified at the lowest LLMV, the LOD and LOQ were calculated as 0.014 ppm and 0.042 pm, respectively.  For 6-CNA, the LOD and LOQ were calculated as 0.0048 ppm and 0.014 respectively.  The method was verified on oyster meat prior to and concurrent with sample analysis and is considered adequate based on acceptable recovery data.  The fortification levels used in method validation and concurrent method recovery are adequate to bracket residues found in the submitted crop field trials.

860.1360 MRM

Bayer Corporation previously submitted adequate MRM recovery data for imidacloprid and the metabolites 5-hydroxy imidacloprid, imidacloprid olefin, des nitro imidacloprid and 6-CNA through FDA Protocols A through E (Memos, F. Griffith, 6/18/93, D187911; 7/15/93, D193027; 6/8/94, D200233; and 6/22/94, D194206).  Imidacloprid and its metabolites were not recoverable by these methods.  The results of the MRM testing for imidacloprid were forwarded to FDA for inclusion in the PAM I (Memo, F. Griffith, 7/15/93, D193005).

`860.1380 Storage Stability

In the magnitude of the residue in oyster study, oyster meat samples were stored for a maximum of 112 days (3.7 months) from collection to analysis; including 8 days between extraction and analysis.  Samples were stored below freezing (<-15°C) at the field sites and at the analytical laboratory prior to extraction.  Adequate storage stability data are available indicating that residues of imidacloprid and 6-CNA are stable in oyster meat at -15C for at least 112 days and 119 days, respectively.  These data support the storage conditions and durations of imidacloprid for the oyster meat field trial samples.

In addition, residues of imidacloprid have been shown to be stable in a variety of RACs for up to 2 years (~728 days) of storage (Memo, F. Griffith, 6/8/95, PP#5F4480).  Analysis of samples from the [14]C-imidacloprid plant metabolism studies for corn, cotton, apples, and potatoes showed no loss of imidacloprid and its major metabolites during a period of 2 years of frozen storage (Memo, F. Griffith, 9/21/93, D185148).

860.1400 Water, Fish, and Irrigated Crops

Magnitude of the Residue in Fish and Nature of the Residue in Fish
No magnitude of the residue in fish or nature of the residue in fish studies were submitted in support of the proposed use.  However, the registrant recently submitted a waiver request for both studies.  The rationale in support of the waiver request was based on both the projected lack of significant uptake by fish, and the projected low dietary risk to sensitive populations in cases where residues of imidacloprid are found in fish (using the FISH model).

HED Conclusions:  The waiver request was presented to the HED ChemSAC on 23-FEB-2011, and the ChemSAC concluded the following (ChemSAC Minutes):

      ChemSAC agreed that no fish metabolism or magnitude of the residue data are needed to support this use.  However, it was suggested that risk assessment team contact EFED to see if their KOW-based Aquatic Bioaccumulation Model (KABAM) model (a comparable model to FISH) has been used to project residues of imidacloprid in fish; and if so, were the results similar to the FISH model results.  The ChemSAC also agreed that tolerances at the LOQ may need to be established for residues of imidacloprid in fish.  The ChemSAC determined that there is a potential for Environmental Justice problems with this use.  The risk assessment team should consult the most recent carbaryl RED for further guidance on this matter.  It was noted that the carbaryl assessment should also be used as an example of a swimmer exposure assessment.

Therefore, data demonstrating the magnitude of the residue or nature of the residue in fish are not necessary to support of the proposed use on oyster beds.  However, the proposed tolerance of 0.05 ppm (LOQ) for residues of imidacloprid in/on fish is appropriate (see Section 860.1550 Proposed Tolerances).

It should be noted the EFED was contacted to see if their KABAM model (a comparable model to FISH) has been used to project residues of imidacloprid in fish.  EFED reported that the KABAM model has not been used for imidacloprid (personal communication between J. Tyler and M. Barrett, 20-AUG-2012).  Due to imidalcoprid's low Kow (3.7 @21°C) and low toxicity to fish, accumulation values are expected to be negligible.

Magnitude of the Residue in Oysters
48741901.der.doc

Table 4.  Summary of Residue Data from Oyster Field Trials with Imidacloprid.
Commodity
                         Total App. Rate (lb ai/A)[2]
                                  PHI (days)
                            Residue Levels (ppm)[1]

                                       n
                                    Sample
                                     Min.
                                    Sample
                                     Max.
                                    LAFT[3]
                                    HAFT[3]
                                    Median
                                     Mean
                                   Std. Dev.
Oyster Meat
                                  0.525-0.590
                                      28
                                       2
                                      ND
                                      ND
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -

                                      57
                                       2
                                      ND
                                      ND
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -

                                     84-86
                                       6
                                      ND
                                   <0.05
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -

                                   1.87-2.02
                                      27
                                       2
                                   <0.05
                                   <0.05
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -

                                      56
                                       2
                                   <0.05
                                   <0.05
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -

                                     84-85
                                       6
                                      ND
                                   <0.05
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
1.  LLMV= 0.05 ppm.
2.  One application of Mallot[(R)] 0.5B at approximately 0.50 lb ai/A, or one application of Mallet[(R)] 2F at approximately 2.0 lb ai/A.
3.  LAFT = lowest average field trial.  HAFT = highest-average field trial.

IR-4 has submitted data from a study examining residues of imidacloprid in oysters.  Three supervised irrigated crop trials were conducted in Washington [North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)] Growing Zone 12 during the 2010 growing season.

Two treated plots were established in each trial, one for the granular formulation (Mallot[(R)] 0.5G, TRT 02), and one for the flowable concentrate formulation (Mallot[(R)] 2F, TRT 03).  In TRT02, a single application of imidacloprid was made using either a drop spreader or hand spreader at an application rate of approximately 0.50 ai/A.  In TRT03, a single application of imidacloprid was made using a backpack sprayer at an application rate of 2.0 lb ai/A.  All applications were made at low tide.  In WA44, TRT 02 was overapplied by approximately 18%, and TRT 03 was underapplied by approximately 6.5%.  Oyster samples were collected from each plot 84-86 days following applications; and, additional oyster samples were collected from the treated plots in WA43 at approximately 30 and 60 days.  Shucked meat was retained as samples.

Total residues of imidacloprid were below the LLMV (0.05 ppm) in oyster meat harvested 26-86 days following either a single application of Mallot[(R)] 0.5G (TRT02) at an application rate of 0.50 lb ai/A; or Mallot[(R)] 2F (TRT03) at an application rate of 2.0 lb ai/A.

HED Conclusions:  The magnitude of the residue study was conducted in accordance with OPPTS Guideline 860.1400, and the data are adequate to support the proposed use.  Total residues of imidacloprid were <LLMV (0.05 ppm) in/on oyster meat harvested 26-86 days following either a single application of Mallot[(R)] 0.5G (TRT02) at an application rate of 0.50 lb ai/A; or Mallot 2F[(R)] (TRT03) at an application rate of 2.0 lb ai/A.  Samples were analyzed for total imidacloprid residues using an acceptable method, and the study is supported by adequate storage stability data.

For oysters, the OECD tolerance-calculation procedures could not be used to calculate a possible tolerance as residues of imidacloprid were <LOQ in/on all samples of oyster meat.  Therefore, the recommended tolerance is 0.05 ppm for fish-shellfish, mollusc is appropriate (see Section 860.1550 Proposed Tolerances).

860.1480 Meat, Milk, Poultry, and Eggs

There are no livestock feed items associated with the proposed use; therefore, residue data on livestock commodities are not required to support the subject petition.

860.1500 Crop Field Trials

As there are no proposed uses on primary crops associated with the subject petition, crop field trial data are not required.

860.1520 Processed Food and Feed

As there are no processed commodities associated with the proposed use, a processing study is not required to support the subject petition.
860.1550 Proposed Tolerances

A summary of the proposed and recommended tolerances for the proposed uses are listed in Table 5.

Table 5.  Tolerance Summary for Imidacloprid.
                                   Commodity
                           Proposed Tolerance (ppm)
                     Currently Established Tolerance (ppm)
                          Recommended Tolerance (ppm)
                                   Comments
                        (correct commodity definition)
fish
                                     0.05
                                       -
                                     0.05

fish-shellfish, mollusc
                                     0.05
                                       -
                                     0.05

There are currently no established Codex, Canadian, or Mexican maximum residue limits (MRLs) for imidacloprid on fish or molluscs.  An International Residue Limit Status Sheet is attached in Appendix I.

860.1850 and 860.1900 Confined/Field Accumulation in Rotational Crops

According to the current guidance, rotational crop studies are not required for the subject petitions.

Attachment 1:  IRLS Sheet.

cc: J. Tyler
RDI: RAB1 Chemists (9/xx/12); G. Kramer (9/7/12)
J. Tyler: S-10943: Potomac Yard 1 (PY1):<PHONE_NUMBER>: 7509P: RAB1
Attachment 1:  IRLS Sheet.

              Imidacloprid (129099; Date of Request: 08/30/2012)
Summary of US and International Tolerances and Maximum Residue Limits
Residue Definition:
US
Canada
Mexico[2]
Codex[3]
40 CFR §180.472:
sum of imidacloprid (1-[6-chloro-3-pyridinyl)methyl]-N-nitro-2-imidazolidinimine) and its metabolites containing the 6-chloropyridinyl moiety, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of imidacloprid
1-[(6-chloro-3-pyridinyl)methyl]-N-nitro-2-
imidazolidinimine, including metabolites containing the
6-chloropicolyl moiety

Sum of imidacloprid and its metabolites containing the 6-chloropyridinyl moiety
Commodity[1]
Tolerance (ppm)/Maximum Residue Limit (mg/kg)

US
Canada
Mexico[2]
Codex[3]
fish
0.05

fish, shellfish, mollusc
0.05

Completed:  M. Negussie; 08/31/2012
[1] Includes only commodities of interest for this action.  Tolerance values should be the HED recommendations and not those proposed by the applicant.
2 Mexico adopts US tolerances and/or Codex MRLs for its export purposes.
3 * = absent at the limit of quantitation; Po = postharvest treatment, such as treatment of stored grains.  PoP = processed postharvest treated commodity, such as processing of treated stored wheat.  (fat) = to be measured on the fat portion of the sample.  MRLs indicated as proposed have not been finalized by the CCPR and the CAC.


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 87 (Friday, May 5, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29176-29177]
[FR Doc No: 2023-09556]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2010-0031]

Long Island Rail Road's Request To Amend Its Positive Train
Control Safety Plan

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This document provides the public with notice that, on April
20, 2023, Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) submitted a request for
amendment (RFA) to its FRA-approved Positive Train Control Safety Plan
(PTCSP) in order to support the implementation of Office Software
Version STS 1.2.5 and changes to Office 3.9.3. As this RFA involves a
request for FRA's approval of proposed material modifications to an
FRA-certified positive train control (PTC) system, FRA is publishing
this notice and inviting public comment on LIRR's RFA to its PTCSP.

DATES: FRA will consider comments received by May 25, 2023. FRA may
consider comments received after that date to the extent practicable
and without delaying implementation of valuable or necessary
modifications to a PTC system.

ADDRESSES: Comments: Comments may be submitted by going to https://www.regulations.gov and following the online instructions for
submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and the

applicable docket number. The relevant PTC docket number for this host
railroad is Docket No. FRA-2010-0031. For convenience, all active PTC
dockets are hyperlinked on FRA's website at https://railroads.dot.gov/research-development/program-areas/train-control/ptc/railroads-ptc-dockets. All comments received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov; this includes any personal information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gabe Neal, Staff Director, Signal,
Train Control, and Crossings Division, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In general, Title 49 United States Code
(U.S.C.) section 20157(h) requires FRA to certify that a host
railroad's PTC system complies with Title 49 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part 236, subpart I, before the technology may be
operated in revenue service. Before making certain changes to an FRA-
certified PTC system or the associated FRA-approved PTCSP, a host
railroad must submit, and obtain FRA's approval of, an RFA to its PTCSP
under 49 CFR 236.1021.
    Under 49 CFR 236.1021(e), FRA's regulations provide that FRA will
publish a notice in the Federal Register and invite public comment in
accordance with 49 CFR part 211, if an RFA includes a request for
approval of a material modification of a signal and train control
system. Accordingly, this notice informs the public that, on April 20,
2023, LIRR submitted an RFA to its PTCSP for its Advanced Civil Speed
Enforcement System II (ACSES II), which seeks FRA's approval for
changes to support the implementation of Office Software Version STS
1.2.5 and changes to Office 3.9.3. These changes include bug fixes,
with no change to system functionality. LIRR's RFA is available in
Docket No. FRA-2010-0031.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on LIRR's RFA to its
PTCSP by submitting written comments or data. During FRA's review of
this railroad's RFA, FRA will consider any comments or data submitted
within the timeline specified in this notice and to the extent
practicable, without delaying implementation of valuable or necessary
modifications to a PTC system. See 49 CFR 236.1021; see also 49 CFR
236.1011(e). Under 49 CFR 236.1021, FRA maintains the authority to
approve, approve with conditions, or deny a railroad's RFA to its PTCSP
at FRA's sole discretion.

Privacy Act Notice

    In accordance with 49 CFR 211.3, FRA solicits comments from the
public to better inform its decisions. DOT posts these comments,
without edit, including any personal information the commenter
provides, to https://www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of
records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See https://www.regulations.gov/privacy-notice for the privacy notice of regulations.gov. To facilitate
comment tracking, we encourage commenters to provide their name, or the
name of their organization; however, submission of names is completely
optional. If you wish to provide comments containing proprietary or
confidential information, please contact FRA for alternate submission
instructions.

    Issued in Washington, DC
Carolyn R. Hayward-Williams,
Director, Office of Railroad Systems and Technology.
[FR Doc. 2023-09556 Filed 5-4-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P