[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 198 (Monday, October 16, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47996-48000]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22357]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0392; FRL-9966-73]

Fenpicoxamid; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
fenpicoxamid (XDE 777) in or on banana, rye, and wheat. Dow
AgroSciences LLC requested these tolerances under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective October 16, 2017. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before December 15, 2017,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0392, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0392 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
December 15, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0392, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of December 20, 2016 (81 FR 92758) (FRL-
9956-04), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
5E8440) by Dow AgroSciences LLC, 9330 Zionsville Rd, Indianapolis, IN
46268. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by
establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide fenpicoxamid
(XDE- 777) in or on banana at 0.1 parts per million (ppm), rye, grain
and wheat, grain at 0.7 ppm; and residues of fenpicoxamid and its
metabolite X12326349 expressed as fenpicoxamid

equivalents in or on meat and fat from cattle, goats, and sheep at 0.01
ppm; and meat byproducts of cattle, goats, and sheep at 0.02 ppm. That
document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Dow
AgroSciences LLC, the registrant, which is available in the docket,
http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response
to the notice of filing. Based upon review of the data supporting the
petition, EPA is establishing tolerances as follows: 0.15 ppm for
banana and 0.60 ppm for rye, grain and wheat, grain. In addition, EPA
has concluded that no tolerances are needed for livestock commodities
at this time. The reason for these changes are explained in Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children. Fenpicoxamid has no significant acute toxicity via oral,
dermal or inhalation route of exposure. Moreover, it is not a skin
irritant and does not cause skin sensitization.
    Liver effects were consistently observed in mice regardless of
duration; however, the severity, magnitude, and diversity of the liver
response progressed from adaptive in subchronic exposures to adverse in
chronic exposures. Mice exposed to fenpicoxamid in the diet for 80
weeks experienced liver weight increase accompanied by microscopic
changes including very slight to moderate centrilobular/midzonal
hepatocellular hypertrophy with altered tinctorial properties
(increased cytoplasmic eosinophilia), vacuolization consistent with
fatty change, and very slight hepatocyte necrosis. These liver effects
also coincided with an increased incidence of microscopic calculi
within the gallbladder in both sexes. A treatment-related increase in
liver tumors were seen in male mice and is the basis for the Agency's
classification of the chemical as ``Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenic
Potential''. The Agency determined that a non-linear approach
adequately accounted for all chronic toxicity, including
carcinogenicity, that could result from chronic exposure to
fenpicoxamid and, therefore, quantification of carcinogenic potential
was not required. This decision was based on the following
considerations: (1) There was limited evidence of carcinogenicity in
the fenpicoxamid toxicity database; (2) the concern for mutagenicity
and genotoxicity is low; and (3) there was no evidence of
carcinogenicity at doses at or below the chronic reference dose.
    Rats were likewise only adversely affected by treatment following
chronic exposures. Chronic dietary exposure elicited treatment-related
changes in the kidneys (increased severity of chronic progressive
glomerulonephropathy) that were considered detrimental to the rat's
health. However, unlike mice, chronic exposure did not elicit an
increase in neoplasms in any tissue. Rabbits and dogs tolerated oral
exposure up to doses of 495 and 1,115 milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/
day), respectively, without any signs of deteriorating health. There
was no evidence of fetal susceptibility in rats or rabbits, or
offspring susceptibility in rats. None of the available studies
produced evidence of treatment-induced immunotoxicity or neurotoxicity.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by fenpicoxamid as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document ``Fenpicoxamid (XDE-777): Human Health
Risk Assessment to Establish Tolerances for Bananas, Wheat, and Rye
Commodities Without U.S. Registration'' at pages 10 through 20 in
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0392.

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 fenpicoxamid used for
human risk assessment is shown in the Table of this unit.

  Table--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Fenpicoxamid for Use in Human Health Risk Assessments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        RfD, PAD, level
       Exposure/scenario              Point of       Uncertainty/FQPA    of concern for          Study and
                                     departure        safety factors    risk assessment    toxicological effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute Dietary (General           There were no effects in the toxicity database that could be attributed to a
 Population, including Infants    single dose; therefore, an acute POD was not identified.
 and Children).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic Dietary (All             NOAEL = 40 mg/kg/  UFA = 10x UFH =    cRfD = 0.40 mg/kg/ Carcinogenicity study--
 Populations).                    day.               10x FQPA SF = 1x.  day cPAD = 0.40    mouse. MRID 49731126.
                                                                        mg/kg/day.         LOAEL = 156 and 388
                                                                                mg/kg/day for males
                                                                                and females,
                                                                                respectively, based
                                                                                on treatment-related
                                                                                adverse liver effects
                                                                                in males (increased
                                                                                liver weight,
                                                                                hypertrophy,
                                                                                hepatocyte necrosis
                                                                                and fatty change) and
                                                                                females (increased
                                                                                liver weight,
                                                                                hypertrophy and fatty
                                                                                change) and gall
                                                                                bladder calculi.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (oral, dermal,            ``Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenic Potential'' based on the presence of
 inhalation).                     liver tumors in male mice only. The cRfD is protective of carcinogenic
                                  effects.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point of Departure (POD) = A data point or an estimated point that is derived from observed dose-response data
  and used to mark the beginning of extrapolation to determine risk associated with lower environmentally
  relevant human exposures. NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level. LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect
  level. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential
  variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies). FQPA SF = FQPA Safety Factor.
  PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to fenpicoxamid, EPA assessed dietary exposures from
fenpicoxamid in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. No such effects were
identified in the toxicological studies for fenpicoxamid; therefore, a
quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment, EPA used the food consumption data from the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's (USDA's) 2003-2008 food consumption data from the
USDA's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in
America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, EPA used
tolerance-level residues and 100% crop treated.
    iii. Cancer. As discussed in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that a
nonlinear RfD approach is appropriate for assessing cancer risk to
fenpicoxamid.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residues and/or PCT information in the
dietary assessment for fenpicoxamid. Tolerance-level residues and 100%
CT were assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. Because there are no
domestic uses of fenpicoxamid registered in the United States, there
will not be residues of fenpicoxamid in drinking water. Therefore, a
drinking water assessment is not required.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Fenpicoxamid is not
registered for any specific use patterns that would result in
residential exposure.
    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 fenpicoxamid to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and fenpicoxamid does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
fenpicoxamid does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality
Protection Act Safety Factor (FQPA SF). In applying this provision, EPA
either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional
safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of
a different factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. Developmental toxicity was
not observed in the rat or rabbit developmental studies and, no
reproductive or offspring effects were observed in the reproduction
toxicity study. As a result, EPA concluded there is low concern for
prenatal or postnatal sensitivity from fenpicoxamid exposure.
    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 for all exposure
scenarios. That decision is based on the following findings:
    i. The toxicity database for fenpicoxamid is complete.
    ii. There is no indication that fenpicoxamid 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 fenpicoxamid 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.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
fenpicoxamid 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
fenpicoxamid from food for the highest exposed population subgroup,
children 1-2 years of age, is 0.002737 mg/kg/day or <1.0% of the cPAD.
The chronic dietary exposure estimate for the general population is
0.001022 mg/kg/day or <1.0% of the cPAD.
    3. Short-term and intermediate-term risk. Because fenpicoxamid is
not registered for any uses that may result in residential exposure,
fenpicoxamid is not expected to cause any short-term or intermediate-
term risk not already accounted for in the Agency's assessment of
chronic risk.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the Agency's
assessment of chronic risk, the Agency concludes that fenpicoxamid is
not expected to pose a cancer risk.
    5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to fenpicoxamid residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (high-performance liquid
chromatography method with tandem mass spectrometry detection (LC/MS/
MS), Method No. 120615) is available to enforce the tolerance
expression.

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    Codex has not established any MRLs for residues of fenpicoxamid.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    EPA is establishing tolerances for wheat, grain and rye, grain (at
0.60 ppm) that differ from what the petition requested (0.7 ppm). The
petitioner included only wheat grain residues for individual growing
season/area combinations. Including all residues for wheat grain in the
OECD MRL calculator in accordance with Agency policy results in a
tolerance level of 0.60 ppm. Because the wheat grain data can be used
to assess residues in rye grain, the Agency is establishing a tolerance
at 0.60 ppm for rye grain as well. Finally, although the notice of
filing and the petition summary indicate that the petitioner was
seeking tolerances for wheat and rye, the section of the petition that
listed actual requested tolerances more narrowly sought only ``wheat,
grain'' and ``rye, grain'' tolerances because those are the forms in
which the wheat and rye will be imported. Accordingly, EPA is
establishing tolerances for the commodities ``wheat, grain'' and ``rye,
grain''.
    EPA is establishing a different tolerance level for banana than
what was requested based on available residue data and the OECD
calculator, and in order to harmonize with Canada's MRL.
    EPA is not establishing any of the petitioned-for tolerances for
livestock commodities. Based on the results of the livestock feeding
studies, the residues of concern for livestock commodities
(fenpicoxamid and X12326349) would be below the limit of quantification
(LOQ) of the enforcement analytical method. Therefore, the Agency
concludes, as indicated in 40 CFR 180.6(a)(3), that there is no
reasonable expectation of finite residues and no tolerances are needed
for livestock commodities at this time.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of fenpicoxamid
and its metabolites and degradates, in or on banana at 0.15 ppm, and
rye and wheat grain at 0.60 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the 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 action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: September 6, 2017.
Richard P. Keigwin, Jr.,
Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Add Sec.  180.109 to subpart C to read as follows:

Sec.  [emsp14]180.109   Fenpicoxamid; Tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of
fenpicoxamid including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the
commodities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance levels
for fenpicoxamid is to be determined by measuring only fenpicoxamid
([[4-methoxy-2-[[[(3S,7R,8R,9S)-9-methyl-8-(2-methyl-1-oxopropoxy)-2,6-
dioxo-7-(phenylmethyl)-1,5-dioxonan-3-yl]amino]carbonyl]-3-
pyridinyl]oxy]methyl 2-methylpropanoate) in or on the commodity.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Parts per
                        Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Banana*.................................................            0.15
Wheat, grain*...........................................            0.60
Rye, grain*.............................................            0.60
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*There are no U.S. registrations for use of fenpicoxamid on this
  commodity.

    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]
    (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. [Reserved]
    (d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 2017-22357 Filed 10-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 10, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 131)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 33146]
[DOCID:fr10jy09-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0546]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Annisquam River and Blynman
Canal, Gloucester, MA, Public Event

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
Blynman (SR127) Bridge across the Blynman Canal at mile 0.0, at
Gloucester, Massachusetts. This deviation is necessary to facilitate
the 2009 Gloucester Triathlon. The deviation allows the bridge to
remain in the closed position during this public event in the interest
of public safety.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 9 a.m. through 11 a.m. on
August 9, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2009-0546 and are available online
at http://www.regulations.gov, selecting the Advanced Docket Search
option on the right side of the screen, inserting USCG-2009-0546 in the
docket ID box, pressing enter, and then clicking on the item in the
Docket ID column. This material is also available for inspection or
copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or e-mail Mr. John McDonald, Project Officer, First Coast Guard
District, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you
have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Blynman (SR127) Bridge, across the
Blynman Canal at mile 0.0, at Gloucester, has a vertical clearance in
the closed position of 7 feet at mean high water and 16 feet at mean
low water. The existing drawbridge operation regulations are listed at
33 CFR 117.586.
    The waterway supports both commercial and seasonal recreational
vessel traffic.
    Under this deviation the Blynman (SR127) Bridge may remain in the
closed position from 9 a.m. through 11 a.m. on August 9, 2009, to
facilitate a public event, the 2009 Gloucester Triathlon. Vessels that
can pass under the closed draws may do so at any time.
    This deviation is necessary for public safety, to facilitate
vehicular traffic management during the 2009 Gloucester Triathlon.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the bridge must return to its
regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: June 23, 2009.
Gary Kassof,
Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E9-16395 Filed 7-9-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register: November 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 227)]
[Notices]
[Page 68610-68611]
[DOCID:fr27no06-102]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP06-354-000, CP06-401-000, CP06-423-000]

Rockies Express Pipeline, LLC, TransColorado Gas Transmission
Company, Questar Overthrust Pipeline Company; Notice of Comment Meeting

November 16, 2006.
    On December 11-15, 2006, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
staff will conduct public comment meetings for the purpose of hearing
comments on the draft environmental impact statement (draft EIS) for
the Rockies Western Phase Project which was issued on November 3, 2006
and which you should have received. The Rockies Western Phase Project
would involve the construction and operation of natural gas facilities
as proposed and described in the above-referenced dockets in the states
of New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, and Missouri and
would include:
     The REX-West Project proposed by Rockies Express Pipeline
LLC;
     The Blanco to Meeker Project proposed by TransColorado Gas
Transmission Company; and
     The Wamsutter Expansion Project proposed by Questar
Overthrust Pipeline Company.
    All five draft EIS comment meetings will begin at 7 p.m. (local
time), and are scheduled as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Date                               Location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, December 11, 2006..............  Holiday Inn, 664 Chase Blvd.,
                                          Sidney, NE 69162, (308) 254-
                                          2000.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006.............  Quality Inn Sandhills, 2102 S.
                                          Jeffers, North Platte, NE
                                          69101,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006...........  Holiday Inn Express, 4005 N.
                                          6th St., Beatrice, NE 68310,
<PHONE_NUMBER>
Thursday, December 14, 2006............  Best Western Inn, 1200 Hwy 24
                                          E., Moberly, MO 65270, (660)
                                          263-6540.
Friday, December 15, 2006..............  Pony Express National Museum,
                                          914 Penn St., St. Joseph, MO
                                          64503,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These meetings will be posted on the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission's calendar located at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx.
 Additional information about the project and the

comment meetings is available from the Commission's Office of External
Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-19937 Filed 11-24-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13384-13385]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5404]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2012-07]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to
improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of
FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the
inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to
affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number involved and must be received on or before March 26, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2012-
0075 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may

review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tyneka Thomas ARM-105,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
FAA, Office of Rulemaking, 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC
20591. This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 29, 2012.
Brenda D. Courtney,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2012-0075.
    Petitioner: American Aviation, Inc.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 119.1(e)(6).
    Description of Relief Sought: The relief sought would allow
American Aviation, Inc., to conduct parachute operations dropping test
flares more than 25-statute-miles from the airport of takeoff.
[FR Doc. 2012-5404 Filed 3-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 5 (Monday, January 9, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2348-2350]
[FR Doc No: 2017-00068]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for the Proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline, Supply Header
Project, and Capacity Lease Proposal

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Docket Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC...........  CP15-554-000, CP15-554-001
Dominion Transmission, Inc.............  CP15-555-000
Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc......  CP15-556-000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared a draft environmental impact statement (EIS)
for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP) and Supply Header Project (SHP)
as proposed by Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC (Atlantic) and Dominion
Transmission, Inc. (DTI), respectively, in the above-referenced
dockets. Atlantic and DTI request authorization to construct and
operate a total of 641.3 miles of natural gas transmission pipeline and
associated facilities, and three new natural gas-fired compressor
stations, and to modify four existing compressor stations. The projects
would provide about 1.44 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas to
electric generation, distribution, and end use markets in Virginia and
North Carolina. In addition, Atlantic and Piedmont Natural Gas Co.,
Inc. (Piedmont) request authorization to allow Atlantic to lease
capacity on Piedmont's existing pipeline distribution system in North
Carolina for use by Atlantic (Capacity Lease Proposal). No construction
or facility modifications are proposed with the Capacity Lease
Proposal.
    The draft EIS assesses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the projects in accordance with the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC
staff concludes that approval of the projects would have some adverse
and significant environmental impacts; however, the majority of impacts
would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with the
implementation of the Atlantic's and DTI's proposed mitigation and the
additional measures recommended in the draft EIS.
    The U.S. Department of Agriculture--Forest Service (FS); U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service--Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge; West
Virginia Department of Environmental Protection; and West Virginia
Division of Natural Resources participated as cooperating agencies in
the preparation of the draft EIS. Cooperating agencies have
jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to resources
potentially affected by the proposals and participate in the NEPA
analysis. Further, the FS may use the EIS when it considers amendments
to Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMPs) for the proposed
crossings of the Monongahela National Forest (MNF) and George
Washington National Forest (GWNF). Although the cooperating agencies
provide input to the conclusions and recommendations presented in the
draft EIS, each agency will present its own conclusions and
recommendations in its respective record of decision or determination
for the projects.
    The draft EIS addresses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the following proposed project
facilities:
    The ACP includes:
     519.1 miles of new 42- and 36-inch-diameter natural gas
pipeline in West Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina;
     84.6 miles of 20- and 16-inch-diameter natural gas
pipeline in Virginia and North Carolina;
     three new compressor station in Lewis County, West
Virginia; Buckingham County, Virginia; and Northampton County, North
Carolina; and
     nine meter stations, along with pig launchers/receivers
and mainline valves.
    The SHP includes:
     37.5 miles of new 36-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline in
Pennsylvania and West Virginia;
     modifications at four existing compressor stations in
Westmoreland and Green Counties Pennsylvania and Marshall and Wetzel
Counties West Virginia;
     abandonment of existing compressor units and associated
facilities in Wetzel County, West Virginia; and
     one meter station, along with pig launchers/receivers and
mainline valves.

Actions of the Forest Service

    The FS's purpose and need for the proposed action is to respond to
a special use application submitted by Atlantic on November 12, 2015,
to allow the construction and operation of the ACP on national forest
system (NFS) lands managed by the MNF and the GWNF. If the FS decides
to authorize the pipeline crossing of NFS lands and issue a special use
permit, the FS has determined that amendments to each national forest
LRMP would be needed.
    Project-specific plan amendments would be needed to deviate from
the precise wording of forest plan standards for the construction and
operation of the ACP. These amendments are considered ``project-
specific'' amendments because they would not change FS requirements for
other projects or authorize any other actions. Additionally, if the
proposed route is authorized and a special use permit issued, the GWNF
LRMP would need to be amended to change the current management
prescriptions in the pipeline's operational corridor to Management
Prescription Area (Rx) 5C-Designated Utility Corridors. The MNF does
not have LRMP direction that would require a similar plan amendment to
reallocate management prescriptions. Therefore, this amendment is
considered a ``plan-level'' amendment and would change future
management direction for the lands reallocated to the new management
prescription. The FS has also identified other potential amendments
that may be required, pending survey information and analyses that are
not currently available.
    Pursuant to Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part
1506.3(c) (40 CFR 1506.3(c)), the FS may adopt and use the EIS
developed by FERC to consider authorization for the construction and
operation of the ACP crossing NFS lands. Further, the FS may use this
EIS when it considers amendments to the LRMPs that would be required
for the proposed crossings of the MNF and GWNF. The FS will prepare
separate Records of Decision for the authorization decision and for the
plan amendments decisions, after issuance of the FERC final EIS.
    The following amendments have been proposed by the FS as part of
the proposed action in the FERC draft EIS:

Monongahela National Forest

    The type of amendment applicable to the MNF would be a project-
specific amendment. This amendment would not change FS requirements for
other projects or authorize any other actions.
    Potential Amendment 1: The MNF LRMP may need to be amended to allow
construction of the ACP to temporarily exceed standards identified
under management direction for soils and water, specifically forest-
wide standards SW06 and SW07, provided that design criteria, mitigation
measures, project requirements, and/or monitoring activities agreed
upon by the FS are

implemented as needed to achieve adequate slope and soil stability.
    Other potential amendments may be needed pending the outcome of
ongoing analyses and development of project design and mitigation.

George Washington National Forest

    The first type of LRMP amendment applicable to the GWNF would be a
plan-level amendment that would change land allocations. This would
change future management direction for the lands reallocated to the new
Rx and is required by LRMP Standards FW-243 and FW-244.
    Proposed Amendment 1: The LRMP would be amended to reallocate 102.3
acres to the Rx 5C-Designated Utility Corridors from these Rxs: 7E1-
Dispersed Recreation Areas (7 acres), and 13-Mosaics of Habitat (95
acres). Rx 11-Riparian Corridors would remain embedded within the new
Rx 5C area.
    Rx 5C-Designated Utility Corridors contains special uses which
serve a public benefit by providing a reliable supply of electricity,
natural gas, or water essential to local, regional, and national
economies. The new Rx 5C land allocation would be 53.5 feet wide, the
width of the final operational right-of-way of the ACP. The area would
not cross into the Rx 4A-Appalachian National Scenic Area but would
stop and start at the existing Rx 4A boundary. The Rx4A would continue
to be managed for the Appalachian National Scenic Trail.
    The second type of amendment applicable to the GWNF would be a
project-specific amendment that would apply only to the construction
and operation of the ACP. The following standards would require a
temporary waiver to allow the project to proceed. These amendments
would not change LRMP requirements for other projects or authorize any
other actions.
    Proposed Amendment 2: The LRMP would be amended to allow
construction of the ACP to exceed restrictions on soil conditions and
riparian corridor conditions as described in LRMP Standards FW-5, FW-
15, FW-16, FW-17, and 11-019, provided that mitigation measures or
project requirements agreed upon by the FS are implemented as needed.
    Proposed Amendment 3: The LRMP would be amended to allow the ACP to
cross the Appalachian National Scenic Trail in Augusta County, Virginia
(reference LRMP Standard 4A-025).
    Potential Amendment 4: The LRMP may need to be amended to allow the
removal of old growth trees within the construction corridor of ACP
(reference LRMP Standard FW-85).
    Potential Amendment 5: The LRMP may need to be amended to allow
major reconstruction of a NFS road within the Rx 2C3 area to provide
access for pipeline construction. This is contingent on the final
location of access roads (reference LRMP Standard 2C3-015).
    Potential Amendment 6: The LRMP may need to be amended to allow the
ACP to not immediately meet Scenic Integrity Objectives; however,
mitigation measures, including vegetation management and restoration
actions, are expected to improve visual quality over an extended
timeframe (reference LRMP Standard FW-182).
    The FS is requesting public comments on the authorization of the
ACP on NFS lands and the draft proposed and potential amendments of the
LRMPs that would allow the ACP to cross the MNF and GWNF. All comments
must be submitted to the FERC as directed in this notice. The FS
decision to authorize the ACP will be subject to FS predecisional
administrative review procedures established in 36 CFR 218. The MNF
Potential Amendment 1, GWNF Proposed Amendments 2 and 3, and Potential
Amendments 4, 5, and 6 were developed in accordance with 36 CFR 219
(2012 version) regulations but will be subject to the administrative
review procedures under 36 CFR 218 regulations Subparts A and B, per 36
CFR 219.59(b). GWNF Proposed Amendment 1 was developed in accordance to
36 CFR 219 (2012) regulations and will be subject to the administrative
review procedures under 36 CFR 219 Subpart B. Refer to the applicable
administrative review regulations for eligibility requirements.
    All comments must be submitted to the FERC, the lead federal
agency, within the timeframe stated in this Notice of Availability.
Refer to Docket No. CP15-554-000 (ACP) in all correspondence to ensure
that your comments are correctly filed in the record. You may submit
your comments to the FERC using one of the four methods listed below.

Distribution and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

    The FERC staff mailed copies of the draft EIS to federal, state,
and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes;
potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and
groups; newspapers and libraries in the project areas; and parties to
this proceeding. Paper copy versions of this draft EIS were mailed to
those specifically requesting them; all others received a CD version.
In addition, the draft EIS is available for public viewing on the
FERC's Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. A limited
number of copies of the draft EIS are available for distribution and
public inspection at:

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First
Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Any person wishing to comment on the draft EIS may do so. To ensure
consideration of your comments on the proposals in the final EIS, it is
important that the Commission receive your comments by April 6, 2017.
    For your convenience, there are four methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the
appropriate docket numbers (CP15-554-000 and CP15-554-001 for ACP;
CP15-555-000 for SHP; or CP15-556-000 for Capacity Lease) with your
submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and
has expert staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please carefully follow these instructions so that
your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief,
text-only comments on a project.
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a
variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' If you are filing a comment on a particular project,
please select ``Comment on a Filing'' as the filing type.
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address:

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

    (4) In lieu of sending written or electronic comments, the
Commission invites you to attend one of the public comment sessions its
staff will conduct in the project area to receive comments on the draft
EIS. We encourage interested groups and individuals to attend and
present oral comments on

the draft EIS. The sessions are scheduled as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date and time                           Location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, February 13, 2017,     Doubletree Hotel, 1965 Cedar Creek Road,
 5:00-9:00 p.m.                 Fayetteville, NC 28312.
Tuesday, February 14, 2017,    Forest Hills Middle School, 1210 Forest
 5:00-9:00 p.m.                 Hills Road, Wilson, NC 27893.
Wednesday, February 15, 2017,  Hilton Garden Inn Roanoke Rapids, 111
 5:00-9:00 p.m.                 Carolina Crossroads Parkway, Roanoke
                                Rapids, NC 27870.
Thursday, February 16, 2017,   Hilton Garden Inn Conference Center, 100
 5:30-9:30 p.m.                 East Constance Road, Suffolk, VA 23434.
Tuesday, February 21, 2017,    Moton Museum, 900 Griffin Boulevard,
 5:00-9:00 p.m.                 Farmville, VA 23901.
Wednesday, February 22, 2017,  Nelson County High School, 6919 Thomas
 5:00-9:00 p.m.                 Nelson Highway, Route 29, Lovingston, VA
                                22949.
Thursday, February 23, 2017,   Holiday Inn Hotel and Conference, 152
 5:00-9:00 p.m.                 Fairway Lane, Staunton, VA 24401.
Tuesday, February 28, 2017,    Highland Center, 61 Highland Center
 5:00-9:00 p.m.                 Drive, Monterey, VA 24465.
Wednesday, March 1, 2017,      Gandy Dance Theater, 359 Beverly Pike,
 5:00-9:00 p.m.                 Elkins, WV 26241.
Thursday, March 2, 2017, 5:00- Marlinton Community Wellness Center, 320
 9:00 p.m.                      9th Street, Marlinton, WV 24954.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There will not be a formal presentation by Commission staff at any
of the ten public comment sessions, although a format outline handout
will be made available. All sessions will begin at 5:00 p.m., with the
exception of the session on Thursday, February 16, 2017, which will
begin at 5:30 p.m. If you wish to provide verbal comments, the
Commission staff will hand out numbers in the order of your arrival.
Number distribution will be discontinued at 8:00 p.m. in order to
ensure all comments are received by the session closing time. Comments
will be taken until 9:00 p.m. (or 9:30 p.m. at the February 16
session). However, if no additional numbers have been handed out and
all individuals who wish to provide comments have had an opportunity to
do so, staff may conclude the session at 8:00 p.m., or after the last
comment is taken.
    The primary goal of the public sessions is to allow individuals to
provide verbal comments on the draft EIS. Individual verbal comments
will be taken on a one-on-one basis with a Court Reporter (with FERC
staff or representative present), called up in the order of the numbers
received. Because we anticipate considerable interest from concerned
citizens, this format is designed to receive the maximum amount of
verbal comments, in a convenient way during the timeframe allotted. If
many people are interested in providing verbal comments in the one-on-
one setting at any particular session, a time limit of 3 minutes may be
implemented for each commenter.
    Your verbal comments will be recorded by the Court Reporter.
Transcripts of all comments from the sessions will be placed into the
dockets for the projects, which are accessible for public viewing on
the FERC's Web site (at www.ferc.gov) through our eLibrary system.
    Commission staff will be available at each venue of the public
sessions to answer questions about our environmental review process. It
is important to note that written comments mailed to the Commission and
those submitted electronically are reviewed by staff with the same
scrutiny and consideration as the verbal comments given at the public
sessions.
    Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a
motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedures (18 CFR part 385.214).\1\ Only intervenors have
the right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision. The
Commission grants affected landowners and others with environmental
concerns intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they
have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which no other
party can adequately represent. Simply filing environmental comments
will not give you intervenor status, but you do not need intervenor
status to have your comments considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See the previous discussion on the methods for filing
comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questions?

    Additional information about the projects is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search,'' and enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP15-
554, CP15-555, or CP15-556). Be sure you have selected an appropriate
date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>; for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and
submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you
spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to
subscribe.

    Dated: December 30, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-00068 Filed 1-6-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


November 15, 2011

The Honorable Lisa Jackson
Administrator
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Ariel Rios Building (Mail Code 1101)
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, D.C.  20460

Re: 	Petition for Reconsideration of Portions of the Final Rule: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines

Dear Administrator Jackson:

I am writing in support of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association's (NRECA) October 19, 2020, Petition for Reconsideration of portions of the Final National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines promulgated on August 20, 2010, (75 Fed. Reg. 51,570).

Price Electric Cooperative serves 9000 members in parts of nine counties in Northern Wisconsin including Price, Iron, Vilas, Ashland, Oneida, Lincoln, Taylor, Rusk, and Sawyer.  Our membership is mostly rural residential and seasonal cabins.  We have one of the lowest member densities with less than 5 members per mile of distribution line.  Also the monthly kWh average per meter is one of the lowest among cooperatives in the state.  Price Electric Cooperative has a staff of 24 full time employees.

It is very difficult for a cooperative the size of Price Electric Cooperative to have the staff on hand to review all of the EPA's rulemaking process, particularly in regard to owners and operators of small emergency generating units participating in peak shaving programs.  There seems to be inconsistencies in the rules regarding how certain RICE are to be regulated.

NRECA's petition addresses restrictions contained in the final rule that prohibit the use of small emergency generating units for peak shaving programs and limits demand reduction service beginning in 2013 without the addition of expensive emission reduction technology on units larger than a specified size.

The main reason this is a problem for Price Electric Cooperative and the members, who take part in this program is that it will have an impact on our ability to help keep cost down to our members while maintaining reliability.  These members have invested in systems to enhance their reliability in many cases to provide service to their customers and are willing to help Price Electric Cooperative manage the electric distribution load.   These engines run during a peak usage situation to help the rest of the members maintain level service and to reduce the overall cost to the cooperative.  In turn the member receives a reduced rate for the overall kWh used.  When the system is operated for peak shaving the member is paid a rate of $.50 per kWh that is offset by the generator.  Both of these programs benefit the entire membership of the cooperative and without the program there will surely be a rate increase.  This will also impact the chance of additional generator sets being added to the program due to the cost increase of the equipment.  Since these generators are owned by the members we have no control over their ability to cover the capital cost for the controls needed to continue the program.

Price Electric Cooperative recommends that the restrictions on the use of small stationary compression ignition and spark ignition RICE emergency generating units for peak shaving and demand reduction purposes should be eliminated entirely.  An alternate solution would be to minimize the restrictions so that the value of our programs would remain.
EPA'S RICE NESHAP rules allow emergency units to operate up to 100 hours-per-year or more for testing, maintenance, etc., including 50 hours-per-year for non emergency situations -- but specifically not for peak-shaving purposes.  Peak shaving programs involve minimal hours of operation, thereby potentially not adding to the allowed 100 annual hours of operation contained in the rules. Continuing the use of peak shaving programs, therefore, would not cause additional public health risks or environmental harm beyond those already contemplated in the final rule.  Elimination of peak-shaving programs, however, would require the procurement of additional central station capacity and potentially the addition of transmission and distribution line capacity to service the demand increase.

Price Electric Cooperative supports the EPA'S efforts to protect public health and the environment from harm caused by the presence of toxic air pollutants.  Price Electric Cooperative is very concerned, however, that the Agency has included unnecessary restrictions in this rule that will cause economic harm to our members without providing any meaningful environmental benefit.

Please contact me if you have any questions or require additional information.  I can be reached at 1-715-339-2155 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Sincerely,

Timothy L. Werner,
Vice President of Member Service
Price Electric Cooperative
P.O. Box 110
Phillips, WI  54555

cc: 	Robert Wayland
	Melanie King
	Kevin Bromberg, SBA


Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US

05/14/2008 04:54 PM

To

"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

Lydia Wegman, Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, <EMAIL_ADDRESS>Brian Heninger, darryl weatherhead

Subject

sample table with addition of "C"

Heidi, per our conversation, my staff has developed an example format of the tables to represent the idea that we don't reach "full attainment".   We have also included an explanation of what the "C" is meant to imply.  I welcome your comments.

You will see additional language in the front of the Ex Sum and other chapters tomorrow am covering the caveats we discussed.

Ron Evans

Leader, Air Benefit & Cost Group

HEID/OAQPS/OAR/EPA

Mail Drop C-439-02

919-541-5488

919-541-0839 fax


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 184 (Monday, September 27, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53298-53299]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20935]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0611; FRL-8950-01-ORD]

Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Sustainable and Healthy
Communities Subcommittee Meeting--October 2021

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Research
and Development (ORD), gives notice of a series of virtual meetings of
the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Sustainable and Healthy
Communities (SHC) Subcommittee to review the SHC research program.
EPA's Sustainable and Healthy Communities (SHC) Research program
provides technical solutions, tools, information, and other resources
in three topic areas critical to fulfilling the Agency's mission to
protect the environment and safeguard public health: Contaminated
Sites; Waste and Materials Management; and Healthy and Resilient
Communities.

DATES: 1. The meeting will be held over two days via videoconference:
    a. Thursday, October 28, 2021, from 12 p.m. to 5 p.m. (EDT); and
    b. Friday, October 29, 2021, from 12 p.m. to 5 p.m. (EDT).
    Attendees must register by October 27, 2021.
    2. A BOSC deliberation videoconference will be held on November 12,
2021, from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. (EDT).
    Attendees must register by November 10, 2021.
    3. A final BOSC deliberation videoconference will be held on
November 19, 2021, from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. (EDT). Attendees must
register by November 18, 2021.
    Meeting times are subject to change. This series of meetings is
open to the public. Comments must be received by October 27, 2021, to
be considered by the subcommittee. Requests for the draft agenda or
making a presentation at the meeting will be accepted until October 27,
2021.

ADDRESSES: Instructions on how to connect to the videoconference will
be provided upon registration at: https://epa-bosc-shc-subcommittee-mtg.eventbrite.com.
    Submit your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0611 by one
of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments.
    [ssquf] Note: comments submitted to the www.regulations.gov website
are anonymous unless identifying information is included in the body of
the comment.
     Email: Send comments by electronic mail (email) to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0611.
    [ssquf] Note: comments submitted via email are not anonymous. The
sender's email will be included in the body of the comment and placed
in the public docket which is made available on the internet.
    Instructions: All comments received, including any personal
information provided, will be included in the public docket without
change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov.
Information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute will not be
included in the public docket and should not be submitted through
www.regulations.gov or email. For additional information about the
EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/.
    Public Docket: Publicly available docket materials may be accessed
Online at www.regulations.gov.
    Copyrighted materials in the docket are only available via hard
copy. The telephone number for the ORD Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Designated Federal Officer (DFO),
Tom

Tracy, via phone/voicemail at:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or via email at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Any member of the public interested in receiving a draft agenda,
attending the meeting, or making a presentation at the meeting should
contact Tom Tracy no later than October 27, 2021.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) is
a federal advisory committee that provides advice and recommendations
to EPA's Office of Research and Development on technical and management
issues of its research programs. The meeting agenda and materials will
be posted to https://www.epa.gov/bosc.
    Proposed agenda items for the meeting include, but are not limited
to, the following: Waste and sustainable materials management.
    Information on Services Available: For information on translation
services, access, or services for individuals with disabilities, please
contact Tom Tracy at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To request
accommodation of a disability, please contact Tom Tracy at least ten
days prior to the meeting to give the EPA adequate time to process your
request.
    Authority: Public Law 92-463, 1, Oct. 6, 1972, 86 Stat. 770.

Mary Ross,
Director, Office of Science Advisor, Policy and Engagement.
[FR Doc. 2021-20935 Filed 9-24-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 86)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 20868-20869]
[DOCID:fr06my09-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2008-1094; Airspace Docket No. 08-ASO-18]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Russellville, AL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: This action confirms the effective date of a direct final rule
that establishes Class E Airspace at Russellville, AL needed to support
new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) developed for Russellville
Municipal Airport. As a result, controlled airspace extending upward
from 700 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) is needed to contain the SIAP
and for Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations changing the operating
status of the airport from Visual flight Rules (VFR) to include IFR
operations concurrent with the publication of the SIAP.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, May 6, 2009. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box

20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Confirmation of Effective Date

    The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for
comments in the Federal Register on December 15, 2008 (73 FR 75941),
Docket No. FAA-2008-1094; Airspace Docket No. 08-ASO-18. The FAA uses
the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule
where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment.
This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were
anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written
notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received
within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on
March 12, 2009. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice
confirms that effective date.
* * * * *

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on April 21, 2009.
Barry A. Knight,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. E9-10395 Filed 5-5-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P