[Federal Register: August 18, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 159)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 50891-50896]
[DOCID:fr18au10-22]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0046; FRL-8836-4]

N-alkyl (C8-C18) Primary Amines and Acetate Salts; Exemption from
the Requirement of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of N-alkyl (C8-C18) primary amines and
acetate salts where the alkyl group is linear and may be saturated and/
or unsaturated, herein referred to in this document as NAPAAS, when
used as a surfactant and related adjuvants of surfactants for pre-
harvest and post-harvest uses under 40 CFR 180.910 and application to
animals under 40 CFR 180.930 at a maximum concentration in formulated
end-use products of 10% by weight in herbicide products, 4% by weight
in insecticide products, and 4% by weight in fungicide products. The
Joint Inerts Task Force (JITF), Cluster Support Team Number 25
submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA), requesting an establishment of an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to
establish a maximum permissible level for residues of NAPAAS.

DATES: This regulation is effective August 18, 2010. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before October 18, 2010,
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: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0046. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Austin, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail 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.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Electronic Access to Other Related Information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR cite at http://
www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr. To access the Harmonized Test Guidelines
referenced in this document electronically, please go to http://
www.epa.gov/oppts and select ``Test Methods and Guidelines.''

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 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. The EPA procedural regulations which
govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in
40 CFR part 178. 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-2009-0046 in the subject line on the first page of
your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in
writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before October
18, 2010. 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 that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit your copies, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0046, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Petition for Exemption

     In the Federal Register of February 4, 2010, (75 FR 5793) (FRL-
8807-5), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408 of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 9E7627)
by The JITF, Cluster Support Team 25 (CST 25), c/o CropLife

America, 1156 15th Street, NW., Suite 400, Washington, DC 20005. The
petition requested that 40 CFR 180.910 and 40 CFR 180.930 be amended by
establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for
residues of NAPAAS when used as at surfactant and related adjuvants of
surfactants in pesticide formulations applied to pre-harvest and post-
harvest crops and animals. These uses are considered inert ingredients
in pesticide products. The concentration in formulated end-use products
not to exceed 10% by weight in herbicide products, 4% by weight in
other pesticidal products. That notice referenced a summary of the
petition prepared by the JITF, Cluster Support Team Number 25 (CST 25),
the petitioner, which is available in the docket, http://
www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the
notice of filing.

III. Inert Ingredient Definition

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

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the
pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to
infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical
residue. . . .''
    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably
foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human
health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to
pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the
inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert
ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures
that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA
is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from
aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with section 408(c)(2)(A) of FFDCA, and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for NAPAAS including exposure
resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with NAPAAS follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature
of the adverse effects caused by NAPAAS as well as the NOAEL and the
LOAEL from the toxicity studies are discussed in this unit.
    The available mammalian toxicology database for NAPAAS consists of
one Harmonized Test Guideline 870.3650 (combined repeated dose toxicity
study with the reproduction/developmental toxicity screening test in
rats); acute oral, dermal, and eye toxicity data; and in vitro
mutagenicity data.
    The NAPAAS are not acutely toxic by the oral route of exposure but
are corrosive to the skin and are severe eye irritants. There is no
clear target organ identified for the NAPAAS. In the Harmonized Test
Guideline 870.3650 study on the representative surfactant, treatment-
related microscopic lesions were observed in both sexes, which included
histomorphologic changes in the stomach (hyperplasia and hyperkeratosis
of the squamous mucosa of the forestomach), and erosions, ulcers,
inflammatory cell infiltrations, and/or edema in the submucosa of the
forestomach and glandular areas of the mucosa. The accumulation of
macrophages was most prevalent in the mesenteric lymph nodes and small
intestine where they were large with an abundant amount of pale foamy
cytoplasm. In the mesenteric lymph node and liver, coalescence of the
large macrophages occurred forming microgranulomas. Thymic atrophy was
observed in both sexes. Histologically, the thymus was smaller due to a
decrease in the amount of cortical lymphocytes, which may be an
indirect or secondary phenomenon, as thymic atrophy often occurs in
animals under stress. No evidence of potential neurotoxicity was
observed in females, and the reduced motor activity observed in the
high-dose males was considered to be secondary to the gastrointestinal
irritation and general malaise and not a neurotoxic effect.
    There was no evidence of increased susceptibility to the offspring
following prenatal and postnatal (four days) exposure and reproductive
toxicity was not observed. There is no evidence of mutagenicity or
carcinogenicity.
    Primary amines and primary amine acetates are biologically
equivalent and follow the same metabolic pathways of oxidation by
monoamine oxidases to generate the C8-C10 fatty acid and ammonia. The
fatty acid would be degraded by well-known pathways ([beta]-oxidation)
to successive releases of acetic acid, which enters into intermediary
metabolism or is metabolized ultimately to carbon dioxide and water.
The CST 25 NAPAAS primary amines and primary amine acetate salt may
also be conjugated, whether by glucuronidation or sulfonation, and
excreted directly.
     There are no chronic toxicity studies available for this series of
surfactants. The Agency used a qualitative structure activity
relationship (SAR) database, DEREK 11, to determine if there were
structural alerts suggestive of

carcinogenicity. No structural alerts were identified.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by the NAPAAS, as well as, the NOAEL and the
LOAEL from the toxicity studies can be found at http://
www.regulations.gov in the document ``N-Alkyl (C8-C18) Primary Amines
and Acetate Salts (NAPAAS - JITF CST 25 Inert Ingredients). Health Risk
Assessment to Support Proposed Exemption from the Requirement of a
Tolerance When Used as Inert Ingredients in Pesticide Formulations,''
pp. 8-12 and 19-22 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0046.

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 NAPAAS used for human
risk assessment is discussed in Unit IV.A of the final rule published
in the Federal Register of July 29, 2009, (74 FR 37578) (FRL-8428-9).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to NAPAAS, EPA considered exposure under the proposed
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. EPA assessed dietary
exposures from NAPAAS in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. No adverse effects attributable to a single
exposure of the NAPAAS inerts were seen in the toxicity databases;
therefore, an acute exposure assessment for the NAPAAS is not
necessary.
     ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment, EPA used food consumption information from the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide
Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue
levels in food, no residue data were submitted for the NAPAAS. In the
absence of specific residue data, EPA has developed an approach which
uses surrogate information to derive upper bound exposure estimates for
the subject inert ingredient. Upper bound exposure estimates are based
on the highest tolerance for a given commodity from a list of high-use
insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides. A complete description of the
general approach taken to assess inert ingredient risks in the absence
of residue data is contained in the memorandum entitled ``Alkyl Amines
Polyalkoxylates (Cluster 4): Acute and Chronic Aggregate (Food and
Drinking Water) Dietary Exposure and Risk Assessments for the Inerts.''
(D361707, S. Piper, 2/25/09) and can be found at http://
www.regulations.gov in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0738.
    In the dietary exposure assessment, the Agency assumed that the
residue level of the inert ingredient would be no higher than the
highest tolerance for a given commodity. Implicit in this assumption is
that there would be similar rates of degradation (if any) between the
active and inert ingredient and that the concentration of inert
ingredient in the scenarios leading to these highest of tolerances
would be no higher than the concentration of the active ingredient.
    The Agency believes the assumptions used to estimate dietary
exposures lead to an extremely conservative assessment of dietary risk
due to a series of compounded conservatisms. First, assuming that the
level of residue for an inert ingredient is equal to the level of
residue for the active ingredient will overstate exposure. The
concentration of active ingredient in agricultural products is
generally at least 50% of the product and often can be much higher.
Further, pesticide products rarely have a single inert ingredient;
rather there is generally a combination of different inert ingredients
used which additionally reduces the concentration of any single inert
ingredient in the pesticide product in relation to that of the active
ingredient. In the case of NAPAAS, EPA made a specific adjustment to
the dietary exposure assessment to account for the use limitations of
the amount of NAPAAS that may be in formulations (to no more than 10%
by weight in herbicide products, 4% by weight in insecticide products,
and 4% by weight in fungicide products) and assumed that the NAPAAS are
present at the maximum limitation rather than at equal quantities with
the active ingredient. This remains a very conservative assumption
because surfactants are generally used at levels far below this
percentage. For example, EPA examined several of the pesticide products
associated with the tolerance/commodity combination which are the
driver of the risk assessment and found that these products did not
contain surfactants at levels greater than 2.25% and that none of the
surfactants were NAPAAS.
    Second, the conservatism of this methodology is compounded by EPA's
decision to assume that, for each commodity, the active ingredient
which will serve as a guide to the potential level of inert ingredient
residues is the active ingredient with the highest tolerance level.
This assumption overstates residue values because it would be highly
unlikely, given the high number of inert ingredients, that a single
inert ingredient or class of ingredients would be present at the level
of the active ingredient in the highest tolerance for every commodity.
Finally, a third compounding conservatism is EPA's assumption that all
foods contain the inert ingredient at the highest tolerance level. In
other words, EPA assumed 100% of all foods are treated with the inert
ingredient at the rate and manner necessary to produce the highest
residue legally possible for an active ingredient. In summary, EPA
chose a very conservative method for estimating what level of inert
residue could be on food, then used this methodology to choose the
highest possible residue that could be found on food and assumed that
all food contained this residue. No consideration was given to
potential degradation between harvest and consumption even though
monitoring data shows that tolerance level residues are typically one
to two orders of magnitude higher than actual residues in food when
distributed in commerce.
    Accordingly, although sufficient information to quantify actual
residue levels in food is not available, the compounding of these
conservative

assumptions will lead to a significant exaggeration of actual
exposures. EPA does not believe that this approach underestimates
exposure in the absence of residue data.
    iii. Cancer. The Agency used a qualitative structure activity
relationship (SAR) database, DEREK 11, to determine if there were
structural alerts suggestive of carcinogenicity. No structural alerts
for carcinogenicity were identified. The Agency has not identified any
concerns for carcinogenicity relating to the inerts NAPAAS. Therefore a
cancer dietary exposure assessment is not necessary to assess cancer
risk.
     iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT)
information. EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information
in the dietary assessment for NAPAAS. Tolerance level residues and/or
100 PCT were assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. For the purpose of the
screening level dietary risk assessment to support this request for an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for NAPAAS, a
conservative drinking water concentration value of 100 ppb based on
screening level modeling was used to assess the contribution to
drinking water for the chronic dietary risk assessments for parent
compound. These values were directly entered into the dietary exposure
model.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets, swimming
pools, and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables).
     The Agency has reviewed the submitted petition as well as all
available data on the use of these inert ingredients in pesticide
formulations, and concludes that the NAPAAS inerts are not used in
formulations that would be applied in and around the home or in a way
that would result in residential exposures; therefore, a residential
exposure risk assessment is not required for the NAPAAS inerts.
    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 NAPAAS to share a common mechanism of toxicity
with any other substances, and NAPAAS does not appear to produce a
toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that NAPAAS 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 website 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 FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. In the case of the NAPAAS,
there was no increased susceptibility to the offspring of rats
following prenatal and postnatal exposure in the Harmonized Test
Guideline 870.3650 reproductive/developmental screening study.
Decreased pup body weight was observed at 40 and 80 milligrams/
kilogram/day (mg/kg/day) where maternal/paternal toxicity was
manifested as microscopic lesions in the stomach, jejunum, thymus, and
lymph nodes at 20, 40, and 80 mg/kg/day. Since the rat reproduction/
developmental study identified a clear NOAEL of 20 mg/kg/day for
offspring effects, and the selected point of departure of 5 mg/kg/day
(parental NOAEL for stomach/jejunum/thymus/lymph node lesions) for the
dietary risk assessment is protective of the offspring effects, there
are no residual concerns.
    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 the NAPAAS inerts is considered
adequate for assessing the risks to infants and children. The toxicity
data available on the NAPAAS consists of one Harmonized Test Guideline
870.3650 combined repeated dose toxicity study with the reproduction/
development toxicity screening test (rat); acute oral, dermal, and eye
toxicity data; and in vitro mutagenicity data. The Agency noted changes
in thymus weight and thymus atrophy. However, these were determined to
be non-specific changes not indicative of immunotoxicity. In addition,
no blood parameters were affected. Furthermore, these compounds do not
belong to a class of chemicals that would be expected to be
immunotoxic. Therefore, these identified effects do not raise a concern
necessitating an additional uncertainty.
    ii. There is no indication that NAPAAS is a neurotoxic chemical and
there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional
UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence that NAPAAS 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 food exposure assessments are considered to be highly
conservative as they are based on the use of the highest tolerance
level from the surrogate pesticides for every food and 100 PCT is
assumed for all crops. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions
in the ground water and surface water modeling used to assess exposure
to NAPAAS in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative
assumptions to assess postapplication exposure of children as well as
incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not
underestimate the exposure and risks posed by NAPAAS.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

     Determination of safety section. 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-term,
intermediate-term, 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, NAPAAS 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
NAPAAS from food and water will utilize 106% of the cPAD for children
1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
There are no residential uses for NAPAAS.
    3. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. The Agency has not
identified any concerns for carcinogenicity relating to NAPAAS.
    4. Determination of safety. EPA notes that the risk for children is
slightly above a cPAD of 100%. The dietary exposure estimates overstate
dietary risk because it assumes that the NAPAAS are present at the
maximum limitation (10% by weight in herbicide products, 4% by weight
in insecticide products, and 4% by weight in fungicide products)
because surfactants are generally used at levels far below these
percentages. EPA examined several of the pesticide products associated
with the tolerance/commodity combinations which are the drivers of the
risk assessment and found that these products did not contain
surfactants at levels greater than 2.25% and that none of the
surfactants were NAPAAS. Therefore, given the exceptionally
conservative nature of the exposure assessment, EPA believes that
actual risks are significantly lower and are not of concern. Based on
this risk assessment, 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 NAPAAS residues.

V. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

     EPA is establishing a limitation on the amount of NAPAAS that may
be used in end-use pesticide formulations. That limitation will be
enforced through the pesticide registration process under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136 et
seq. EPA will not register any pesticide for sale or distribution that
contains a maximum concentration in formulated end-use products of
NAPAAS greater than 10% by weight in herbicide products, 4% by weight
in insecticide products, and 4% by weight in fungicide products.

B. International Residue Limits

    The Agency is not aware of any country requiring a tolerance for
NAPAAS nor have any CODEX Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) been
established for any food crops at this time.

VI. Conclusions

     Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is
established under 40 CFR 180.910 and 40 CFR 180.930 for N-alkyl (C8-
C18) primary amines and acetate salts where the alkyl group is linear
and may be saturated and/or unsaturated when used as an inert
ingredient (surfactant and related adjuvants of surfactants) in
pesticide formulations applied to pre-harvest and post-harvest crops
and animals at a maximum concentration in formulated end-use products
of 10% by weight in herbicide products, 4% by weight in insecticide
products, and 4% by weight in fungicide products.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of
FFDCA 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 section 408(d) of FFDCA, 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 section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. 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) (Public Law 104-4).
    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), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

VIII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: August 9, 2010.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
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. 180.910, the table is amended by adding alphabetically the
following inert ingredients to read as follows:

Sec.  180.910  N-alkyl (C8-C18) primary amines and accetate salts;
Exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Inert ingredients               Limits               Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              * * * * * * *
N-alkyl (C8-C18) primary amines   Concentration in    Surfactants,
 and their acetate salts where     formulated end-     related adjuvants
 the alkyl group is linear and     use products not    of surfactants
 may be saturated and/or           to exceed 10% by
 unsaturated (CAS Reg. Nos.        weight in
 61790-57-6, 61790-58-7, 61790-    herbicide
 59-8, 61790-60-1, 61788-46-3,     products, 4% by
 61790-33-8, 68155-38-4)           weight in
                                   insecticide
                                   products, and 4%
                                   by weight in
                                   fungicide
                                   products.
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. In Sec. 180.930, the table is amended by adding alphabetically the
following inert ingredients to read as follows:

Sec.  180.930  N-alkyl (C8-C18) primary amines and accetate salts;
Exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Inert ingredients               Limits               Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              * * * * * * *
N-alkyl (C8-C18) primary amines   Concentration in    Surfactants,
 and their acetate salts where     formulated end-     related adjuvants
 the alkyl group is linear and     use products not    of surfactants
 may be saturated and/or           to exceed 10% by
 unsaturated (CAS Reg. Nos.        weight in
 61790-57-6, 61790-58-7, 61790-    herbicide
 59-8, 61790-60-1, 61788-46-3,     products, 4% by
 61790-33-8, 68155-38-4)           weight in
                                   insecticide
                                   products, and 4%
                                   by weight in
                                   fungicide
                                   products.
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2010-20300 Filed 8-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 217 (Tuesday, November 10, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69571-69573]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28313]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-1008; Directorate Identifier 2013-SW-064-AD;
Amendment 39-18317; AD 2015-23-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Type
Certificate Previously Held by Schweizer Aircraft Corporation)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky) Model 269A, 269A-1, 269B,
269C, 269C-1, 269D, and TH-55A helicopters. This AD requires
repetitively inspecting and lubricating the tail rotor (T/R) driveshaft
splined fittings. This AD was prompted by a report that the T/R
driveshaft can disconnect due to deterioration of the splined coupling.
The actions are intended to detect and prevent excessive wear of the
splined coupling, which could lead to failure of the T/R driveshaft and
subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES: This AD is effective December 15, 2015.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain documents listed in this AD as of December 15,
2015.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Customer Service Engineering, 124 Quarry
Road, Trumbull, CT 06611; telephone 1-800-Winged-S or<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may review a copy of the referenced
service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX
76177.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
1008; or in person at the Docket Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, any incorporated-by-reference service information,
the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The street address for the Docket Operations Office (phone: 800-647-
5527) is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations Office,
M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Kowalski, Aviation Safety
Engineer, New York Aircraft Certification Office, Engine & Propeller
Directorate, 1600 Stewart Ave., Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On April 22, 2015, at 80 FR 22436, the Federal Register published
our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Sikorsky Model 269A,
269A-1, 269B, 269C, 269C-1, 269D, and TH-55A helicopters. The NPRM
proposed to require, within 100 hours time-in-service (TIS), a one-time
inspection and lubrication of the T/R driveshaft splined fittings and
replacing a splined fitting and the T/R driveshaft if the fitting has
excessive wear. If the helicopter has a T/R driveshaft grease fitting
installed, the NPRM also proposed to require inspecting each grease
fitting for certain conditions and replacing the grease fitting if
necessary. The NPRM also proposed to require, at intervals not
exceeding 100 hours TIS, inspecting the T/R driveshaft for
straightness, twists, and scratches; inspecting each forward and aft T/
R driveshaft splines for wear; and correcting the torque of each main
transmission aft pinion nut. The proposed requirements were prompted

by a report of excessive spline wear on the forward and aft T/R
driveshaft spined fittings. The proposed requirements were intended to
prevent failure of the T/R driveshaft and subsequent loss of control of
the helicopter.
    Since the NPRM was issued, the FAA Southwest Regional Office has
relocated. We have revised the contact information throughout this
Final Rule to reflect the new address.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM (80 FR 22436,
April 22, 2015).

FAA's Determination

    We have reviewed the relevant information and determined that an
unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other
products of these same type designs and that air safety and the public
interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Sikorsky 269 Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) B-299.1 for
Model 269A, 269A-1, 269B, 269C, and TH-55A helicopters; 269C-1 ASB C1B-
036.1 for Model 269C-1 helicopters; and 269D ASB DB-041.1 for Model
269D helicopters, each Revision 1 and dated February 24, 2012. Each ASB
describes procedures for cleaning, inspecting, and lubricating the
forward and aft T/R driveshaft splined fittings and returning to
Sikorsky any parts that exceed wear limits. Each ASB also requires
implementing a 100-hour TIS recurring inspection of the T/R driveshaft,
coupling and internal stop, coupling drive splines, and the pinion nut
by following the procedures in each model helicopter's Handbook of
Maintenance Instructions. This service information is reasonably
available because the interested parties have access to it through
their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
ADDRESSES section of this AD.

Differences Between This AD and the Service Information

    The Sikorsky ASBs require returning any splined fittings that
exceed wear limits to Sikorsky, while this AD requires replacing those
fittings and the T/R driveshaft.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 1,085 helicopters of U.S.
Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in
order to comply with this AD. At an average labor rate of $85 per work-
hour, inspecting and lubricating the T/R driveshaft splined fittings
requires 1.8 hours, for a cost per helicopter of $153 and a total cost
of $166,005 for the fleet. Inspecting the grease fittings requires 0.25
hour, for a cost of $21 per helicopter and a total cost of $22,785 for
the fleet. Inspecting the driveshaft, fittings, internal stops, and
drive spines requires 1.8 hours, for a cost per helicopter of $153 and
a total cost of $166,005 for the fleet, per inspection cycle.
    If required, replacing the T/R driving spline and driveshaft
requires 1.6 work-hours, and required parts will cost about $14,853,
for a cost per helicopter of $14,989.
    If required, replacing a T/R driven spline and driveshaft requires
1.5 work-hours, and required parts will cost about $14,836, for a cost
per helicopter of $14,964.
    If required, replacing a grease fitting requires about 0.25 work-
hour, and required parts will cost about $5, for a cost per helicopter
of $26.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. 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.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (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);
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent
that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2015-23-01 Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Type Certificate
Previously Held by Schweizer Aircraft Corporation) Helicopters:
Amendment 39-18317; Docket No. FAA-2015-1008; Directorate Identifier
2013-SW-064-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky)
Model 269A, 269A-1, 269B, 269C, 269C-1, 269D, and TH-55A
helicopters, certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as insufficient lubrication
of a tail rotor (T/R) driveshaft splined fitting. This condition
could result in excessive wear of the T/R driveshaft splines, which
could lead to failure of the T/R driveshaft and subsequent loss of
control of the helicopter.

(c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective December 15, 2015.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    (1)Within 100 hours time-in-service (TIS):
    (i) Inspect each T/R driveshaft splined fitting for a crack, a
break, excessive wear,

galling, spalling, chipping, corrosion, heat discoloration, and
distortion by following the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs
3.B.(1) through 3.B.(2), of Sikorsky 269 Alert Service Bulletin
(ASB) B-299.1 for Model 269A, 269A-1, 269B, 269C, and TH-55A
helicopters; 269C-1 ASB C1B-036.1 for Model 269C-1 helicopters; or
269D ASB DB-041.1 for Model 269D helicopters, each Revision 1 and
dated February 24, 2012. If there is a crack, a break, excessive
wear, galling, spalling, chipping, corrosion, heat discoloration, or
distortion on any T/R driveshaft splined fitting, before further
flight, replace the affected splined fitting and the T/R driveshaft.
    (ii) If installed, inspect each T/R driveshaft grease fitting
for looseness, presence of a check ball inside each fitting, and for
proper operation and seating of each check ball. If any grease
fitting is loose, missing a check ball, fails to properly operate,
or if a check ball fails to seat, before further flight, replace the
grease fitting.
    (iii) Lubricate each driveshaft fitting by following the
Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.B.(6), of Sikorsky 269 ASB
B-299.1 for Model 269A, 269A-1, 269B, 269C, and TH-55A helicopters;
269C-1 ASB C1B-036.1 for Model 269C-1 helicopters; or 269D ASB DB-
041.1 for Model 269D helicopters, each Revision 1 and dated February
24, 2012.
    (2) Within 100 hours TIS after the inspections required by
paragraph (e)(1) of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not
exceeding 100 hours TIS:
    (i) Remove the driveshaft from the gearbox and clean any grease
from each end fitting.
    (ii) Inspect the driveshaft for straightness, a twist, and a
scratch. If the driveshaft has any bends, twists, or scratches,
before further flight, replace the driveshaft.
    (iii) Inspect the internal splines of each forward and aft
fitting and each internal stop for wear. If there is any wear,
before further flight, replace the fitting.
    (iv) Inspect the drive splines of each splined drive fitting for
wear. If there is any wear, before further flight, replace the
splined drive fitting.
    (v) Loosen the aft frame clamp and apply a torque of 750 to
1,000 inch-pounds to each main transmission aft pinion nut.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,
may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Stephen
Kowalski, Aviation Safety Engineer, New York Aircraft Certification
Office, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1600 Stewart Ave., Suite
410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6500, Tail Rotor
Drive.

(h) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Sikorsky 269 Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) B-299.1, Revision
1, dated February 24, 2012.
    (ii) Sikorsky 269C-1 ASB C1B-036.1, Revision 1, dated February
24, 2012.
    (iii) Sikorsky 269D ASB DB-041.1, Revision 1, dated February 24,
2012.
    (3) For Sikorsky service information identified in this AD,
contact Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Customer Service Engineering,
124 Quarry Road, Trumbull, CT 06611; telephone 1-800-Winged-S or
203-416-4299; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-
321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on October 30, 2015.
James A. Grigg,
Acting Assistant Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-28313 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 47 (Friday, March 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10468-10469]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04708]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP18-84-000]

Dominion Energy Transmission, Inc.; Tennessee Gas Pipeline
Company, L.L.C.; National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation; Notice of
Application

    Take notice that on February 13, 2018, Dominion Energy
Transmission, Inc. (Dominion Energy), 120 Tredegar Street, Richmond, VA
23219, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (Tennessee),

1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000, Houston, TX 77002 and National Fuel
Gas Supply Corporation (National Fuel), 6363 Main Street,
Williamsville, NY 14221, jointly filed an application in Docket No.
CP18-84-000 pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and
Part 157 of the Commission's regulations, for a certificate of public
convenience and/or necessity requesting authorization to establish a
protective boundary around the active limit of the Ellisburg Storage
Pool located in Potter, Pennsylvania. The proposed expansion would
establish a 2,000-foot buffer area around the reservoir containing
6,394.57 acres, all as more fully set forth in the application which is
on file with the Commission and open for public inspection. The filing
may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-
free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application may be directed to Matthew
R. Bley, Director, Gas Transmission Certificates, Dominion Energy
Transmission, Inc., 707 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219, or
by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email at [email protected].
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 7 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenter's will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenter's will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and ill not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a) (1) (iii) and the instructions on the
Commission's website under the e-Filing link.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on March 15, 2018.

    Dated: February 22, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-04708 Filed 3-8-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P