[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 101 (Thursday, May 24, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31064-31065]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12668]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2012-20]

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 June 13, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2002-
13734 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: Robert Hawks, Office of the Chief
Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 17, 2012.
Lirio Liu,
Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2002-13734. Petitioner: Republic Airline, Inc.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 93.123.
    Description of Relief Sought: Republic Airline Inc. (Republic)
requests an exemption from the slot limit for Ronald Reagan Washington
National Airport (DCA) set forth in Sec.  93.123(a). This exemption
would permit Republic to continue to operate one slot, which it
currently uses for nonstop service between DCA and Milwaukee County's
General Mitchell International Airport.
    On June 14, 2010, the FAA renewed Republic's exemption until
September 30, 2012. That grant of exemption stated the FAA would
publish any future extension petitions to permit the public to comment
on the continued public interest served by this exemption.
Specifically, the FAA requests comments focus on three issues: (1)
Whether the FAA should extend the exemption to Republic for a period of
at least 2 years; (2) whether the FAA should permit the exemption to
retire according to its terms; and (3) whether the FAA should permit
the exemption to retire and grant a similar exemption to another
carrier following a lottery among interested new entrant or limited
incumbent carriers as defined in 14 CFR 93.123. The FAA will review all
comments received and may publish an additional notice.

[FR Doc. 2012-12668 Filed 5-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 FILE NAME:   company.wpt   (1/1/2005) (xml)

Alfalfa, citrus crop group, increase in stonefruit

November 20, 2008

Template Number P25

ATTENTION:

	All commodity terms must comply with the Food and Feed Commodity
Vocabulary database (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/foodfeed/).

	All text in blue font (instructions for preparing the document), should
be removed prior to sending the document to the Federal Register Staff.
Instructional text and prompts in green font should also be removed.

COMPANY FEDERAL REGISTER DOCUMENT SUBMISSION TEMPLATE

(1/1/2005)

EPA Registration Division contact:

[Cynthia Giles-Parker,

Registration Division (7505C),

Office of Pesticide Programs,

Environmental Protection Agency,

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

Washington, DC 20460–0001;

Telephone number: (703) 305–7740;

e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

INSTRUCTIONS:  Please utilize this outline in preparing tolerance
petition documents.  In cases where the outline element does not apply
please insert “NA-Remove” and maintain the outline.  The comment
notes that appear on the left margin represent hidden typesetting codes
designed to expedite the processing of the Federal Register document.
Please do not remove or alter these comment notes or change the margins,
font, or format  in your document. Simply replace the instructions that
appear in italics and brackets, i.e., “[insert company name],” with
the information specific to your action.

TEMPLATE:

 by establishing a tolerance for residues of [Boscalid (BAS 510F);
[3-pyridinecarboxamide, 2-chloro-N-(4'-chloro(1,1'-biphenyl)-2-yl)-] in
or on the raw agricultural commodity for the Alfalfa Forage at [35]
parts per million (ppm), Alfalfa Hay at [85] parts per million (ppm),
Citrus Crop Group 10 at [2] parts per million (ppm), and increasing the
established tolerance for Stonefruit Crop Group 12 from 1.7 ppm to [5]
parts per million (ppm).  EPA has determined that the petition contains
data or information regarding the elements set forth in section
408(d)(2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the
sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data
supports granting of the petition.  Additional data may be needed before
EPA rules on the petition.

.  [Based on available acute toxicity data, boscalid and its formulated
products do not pose acute toxicity risks.  The acute toxicity studies
place technical Boscalid (BAS 510 F) in toxicity category IV for acute
oral; category III for acute dermal and category IV for acute
inhalation.  Boscalid is category IV for both eye and skin irritation
and it is not a dermal sensitizer. For the proposed Oilseed Crop Group
20, the product proposed is Endura® fungicide (BAS 510 02/04F)
containing boscalid (BAS 510F) as the active ingredient.  Endura®
fungicide (BAS 510 02/04F) has an acute oral toxicity category of III,
acute dermal of category III, acute inhalation of category IV, eye
irritation of category III, skin irritation of category IV, and is not a
dermal sensitizer.]

.  [Ames Test (1 Study; gene point mutation): Negative; In Vitro
CHO/HGPRT Locus Mammalian Cell Mutation Assay (1 Study; point gene
mutation): Negative; In Vitro V79 Cell Cytogenetic Assay (1 Study;
Chromosome Damage): Negative; In Vivo Mouse Micronucleus (1 Study;
Chromosome Damage): Negative; In Vitro Rat Hepatocyte (1 Study; DNA
damage and repair): Negative. Boscalid has been tested in a total of 5
genetic toxicology assays consisting of in vitro and in vivo studies.
It can be stated that Boscalid did not show any mutagenic, clastogenic
or other genotoxic activity when tested under the conditions of the
studies mentioned above.  Therefore, boscalid does not pose a genotoxic
hazard to humans.]

.  [The potential reproductive and developmental toxicity of boscalid
was investigated in a two-generation rat reproduction study as well as
in rat and rabbit teratology studies.  There were no adverse effects on
reproduction in the two-generation study at any dose tested.  The
reproductive NOAEL is 10,000 ppm (1165 and 1181 for males and females,
respectively), the highest dose tested. .  Toxicity to the offspring was
seen at 1,000 ppm in the form of decreased pup weights in the F2 males,
and at 10,000 ppm in the form of decreased pup weights for both males
and females of both the F1 and F2 generations.  The offspring NOAEL is
100 and 1000 ppm (11 and 116 mg/kg b.w./day) for males and females,
respectively. In males of the F1 generation, reduced body weight and
reduced body weight gain were observed at 10,000 ppm. Additionally,
hepatocyte degeneration was observed in male animals of both the F0 and
F1 generations at 10,000 ppm.  The parental systemic NOAEL is 1000 and
10,000 (113 and 1181 mg/kg b.w./day) for males and females, respectively

No teratogenic effects were noted in either the rat or rabbit
developmental studies. In the rat study, evidence of maternal or
developmental toxicity was not observed at any dose (highest dose tested
of 1,000 mg/kg b.w./day).  In the rabbit teratology study, at the high
dose of 1,000 mg/kg b.w./day a maternal body weight gain decrease
compared to controls of 81% was observed during the treatment period.
Reduced food consumption, reduced body weight and abortions in three
dams, were also seen at 1,000 mg/kg b.w./day.  The NOAEL for both
maternal and developmental toxicity was determined to be 300 mg/kg
b.w/day.

Neurotoxicity was not observed at any dose in the developmental
neurotoxicity study.  Reduced pup body weights were observed at the high
and mid dose levels of 1000 and 10,000 ppm (118 and 1,183 mg/kg
b.w./day, respectively).  No developmental toxicity was seen at the low
dose of 14 mg/kg b.w./day (100 ppm).  Although no maternal toxicity was
seen in this study, other studies which evaluated more parameters at
similar doses of boscalid demonstrated maternal toxicity.

The Agency concluded that there are no residual uncertainties for pre-
and postnatal toxicity as the degree of concern is low for the
susceptibility seen in the above studies, and the dose and endpoints
selected for the overall risk assessments will address the concerns for
the body weight effects seen in the offspring.  Although the dose
selected for overall risk assessments (21.8 mg/kg b.w./day) is higher
than the NOAEL's in the 2-generation reproduction study (11 mg/kg
b.w./day) and the developmental neurotoxicity study (14 mg/kg b.w./day),
these differences are considered to be an artifact of the dose selection
process in these studies.  For example, there is a 10-fold difference
between the LOAEL (113 mg/kg b.w./day) and the NOAEL (11 mg/kg b.w./day)
in the two generation reproduction study. A similar pattern was seen
with regard to the developmental neurotoxicity study, where there is
also a 10-fold difference between the LOAEL (147 mg/kg b.w./day) and the
NOAEL (14 mg/kg b.w./day).  There is only a 2-3-fold difference between
the LOAEL (57 mg/kg b.w./day) and the NOAEL (21.8 mg/kg b.w./day) in the
critical chronic dog study which was used for risk assessment.  Because
the gap between the NOAEL and LOAEL in the 2-generation reproduction and
developmental neurotoxicity studies was large and the effects at the
LOAEL's were minimal, the true no-observed-adverse-effect-level was
probably considerably higher. Therefore, the selection of the NOAEL of
21.8 mg/kg b.w./day from the 1-year dog study is conservative and
appropriate for the overall risk assessments.  In addition, the
endpoints for risk assessment are based on thyroid effects seen in
multiple species (mice, rats and dogs) and after various exposure
durations (subchronic and chronic exposures) which were not observed at
the LOAEL's in either the 2-generation reproduction or the developmental
neurotoxicity studies.  Based on these data, the Agency concluded that
there are no residual uncertainties for pre- and post-natal toxicity.]

[The subchronic toxicity of boscalid was investigated in 90–day
feeding studies with rats, mice and dogs, and in a 28–day dermal
administration study in rats.  Additionally a 90–day neurotoxicity
study in rats was performed.  Generally, mild toxicity was observed
including alterations in various clinical chemistry parameters and
effects on the liver and thyroid.  In the rat, effects observed were
increased thyroid weight and increased incidence of thyroid hyperplasia
as well as follicular epithelial hypertrophy.  Increased liver weights
and an increased incidence of marked fatty changes in the liver were
observed in mice  Changes observed in dogs were increased serum alkaline
phosphatase and liver weights.  The lowest subchronic toxicity NOAEL was
from the dog study (7.6/8.1 mg/kg b.w./day in males and females,
respectively).

In the 28–day repeat dose dermal study, no systemic effects were noted
up to the highest dose tested of 1,000 mg/kg b.w./day.

In a 90–day rat neurotoxicity study, no signs of neurotoxicity were
observed in the pups or adults.  The NOAEL is the highest tested of
15,000 ppm (1,050/1,272 mg/kg b.w./day in males and females,
respectively).]

. [The chronic toxicity/oncogenicity studies with boscalid include a
12–month feeding study with Beagle dogs, an 18–month B63CF1 mouse
feeding study, a 24–month Wistar rat chronic feeding study and a
24–month Wistar rat oncogenicity study. At the highest dose tested in
dogs, effects observed consisted primarily of increased liver and
thyroid weights and some serum clinical chemistry changes.  The NOAEL
was 800 ppm (21.8 mg/kg b.w./day males; 22.1 mg/kg b.w./day females).

In the mouse oncogenicity study, decreased body weights were seen in
both males and females at 8000 ppm (1345 and 1804 mg/kg b.w./day for
males and females, respectively) and in males at 2000 ppm (331 mg/kg
b.w./day).  Also in males at 8000 ppm, increased liver weights  and an
increased incidence of peripherial hypertrophy of the liver were
observed.  The NOAEL was 400 ppm and 2000 ppm (65 and 443 mg/kg
b.w./day) for male and female mice, respectively.

In both the rat chronic and oncogenicity studies, the highest dose
tested of 15,000 ppm exceeded a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and was
discontinued after 17 months.  Effects observed at the next highest dose
of 2,500 ppm (110/ 150 mg/kg b.w./day for males and females,
respectively) were increased thyroid weights and histopatholigical
changes in the thyroid which included follicular cell hypertrophy,
hyperplasia and adenomas.  The NOAEL was 500 ppm (22 and 30 mg/kg
b.w./day for male and female rats, respectively).

No evidence of treatment-induced oncogenicity was observed in the mouse
study.  In the rat, a slight increase in thyroid follicular cell
adenomas was seen in both sexes at the high dose when the data from both
chronic and oncogenicity bioassays are combined.

	A non-genotoxic (threshold) mode of action (MOA) for the thyroid
follicular cell adenomas was demonstrated from results of several
studies.

Based on review of the available data, the Reference Dose (RfD) for
boscalid was based on a 1-year feeding study in dogs with a NOAEL of
21.8 mg/kg b.w./day.  Using an uncertainty factor of 100, the RfD is
calculated to be 0.218 mg/kg b.w./day.  Based on the acute toxicity
data, an acute dietary risk assessment is not needed.

Threshold effects.

	Boscalid was shown to be non-carcinogenic in mice.  There was a slight
increase in thyroid follicular cell adenomas at the high dose in both
sexes in the rat.  A non-genotoxic (threshold) MOA was demonstrated for
the thyroid tumors.  The Agency concluded a carcinogenicity
classification of “suggestive evidence of carcinogenicity” and that
a dose response assessment for cancer was not needed.]

. [In the rat, the predominant route of excretion of boscalid (BAS 510F)
is fecal with urinary excretion being minor.  The half-life of boscalid
is less than 24 hours.  Saturation of absorption appears to be occurring
at the high dose level. Boscalid is rapidly and intensively metabolized
to a large number of biotransformation products.  The hydroxylation of
the diphenyl moiety was the quantitatively most important pathway.
Second most important was the substitution of the Cl of the
2-chloropyridine part against SH by conjugation with glutathione.  No
major differences were observed.  In hens and goats the residues of
concern were determined to be parent, the hydroxylated metabolite M510
F01 (2-chloro-N-(4'chloro-5-hydroxy-biphenyl-2-yl)nicotinamide), and the
glucuronic acid of the metabolite M510 F02.]

. [No additional studies were required for metabolite toxicology.]

.  [No specific tests have been conducted with boscalid to determine
whether the chemical may have an effect in humans that is similar to an
effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen or other endocrine
effects. However, there were no significant findings in other relevant
toxicity studies (i.e., subchronic and chronic toxicity, teratology and
multi-generation reproductive studies) which would suggest that boscalid
produces endocrine related effects.]

. [An assessment was conducted to evaluate the potential risk due to
chronic dietary exposure of the U.S. population and sub-populations to
residues of boscalid.  Tolerance values for boscalid (BOSCALID) have
previously been established and are listed in U.S. 40 CFR § 180.589.

This analysis included all crops with established boscalid tolerance
values, increased tolerance value for Stone Fruit to 5 ppm, Greenhouse
Tomatoes at 1.2 ppm,  Citrus Crop Group 10 at 2 ppm, and Alfalfa Hay at
85 ppm and Alfalfa Forage at 35 ppm.  The new tolerances for Alfalfa
resulted in an increase in all meat, milk, egg, and poultry tolerances
which were also included in the tolerance.   The new proposed tolerances
are milk at 0.2 ppm, milk fat at 1.5 ppm, Fat (cattle, sheep, goat,
horse) at 1.5 ppm, kidney (cattle, sheep, goat, horse) at 1.0, liver
(cattle, sheep, goat, horse) at 1.0, meat (cattle, sheep, goat, horse)
at 0.2 ppm, meat by-products (cattle, sheep, goat, horse) at 1.5ppm,
poultry liver at 0.2 ppm, poultry fat at 0.2 ppm, poultry meat
by-products at 0.2, hog fat at 0.2, hog meat by-products at 0.2 ppm, hog
liver at 0.2, and hog kidney at 0.2. ]

.

[Acute Dietary Exposure Assessment

An acute assessment was not needed since the U.S. EPA Toxicological
Endpoint Selection (TES) Committees had previously evaluated the
boscalid toxicity data and determined there were no toxic effects
attributable to a single dose.  Therefore, a quantitative acute dietary
exposure and risk assessment were not required.]

Chronic Dietary Exposure Assessment

A partially refined Tier 1 chronic dietary exposure assessment was
conducted assuming tolerance level residues, experimentally determined
processing factors, 100% crop treated factors for all crops and
consumption data from the USDA Continuing Survey of Food Intake by
Individuals (CSFII 1994 - 1996, 1998) and the EPA Food Commodity
Ingredient Database (FCID) using Exponent's Dietary Exposure Evaluation
Module (DEEM-FCID) software.  Residues in animal commodities (i.e. meat,
meat byproducts, fat, milk, eggs) were included at the tolerance levels
currently established and listed in U.S. 40 CFR § 180.589.

Dietary exposure estimates were compared against the established
boscalid chronic Population Adjusted Dose (cPAD) of 0.218 mg/kg b.w./day
for all populations.  Results of the chronic dietary assessments are
listed in the Table 1.  The estimated chronic dietary exposure from
crops and animal commodities was less than 26% of the cPAD for all
subpopulations.  Additional refinements such as the use of anticipated
residues and adjusted crop treated factors would further reduce the
estimated chronic dietary exposure.  The results in Table 1 demonstrate
there are no safety concerns for any subpopulation based on established
and new uses, and the results clearly meet the FQPA standard of
reasonable certainty of no harm.

Table 1.  Summary of Chronic Dietary Exposure Assessment

Considering Crops with Established and Proposed Tolerances

for Boscalid

Population

Subgroups	Exposure Estimate

(mg/kg b.w./day)	%cPAD

U.S. Population	0.020463	9.4

All Infants	0.039264	18.0

Children 1-2 years	0.054918	25.2

Children 3-5 years	0.042551	19.5

Children 6-12 years	0.025727	11.8

Youth 13-19 years	0.014639	6.7

Adults 20-49 years	0.016182	7.4

Adults 50+ years	0.018738	8.6

Females 13 - 49	0.016299	7.5

%cPAD = percent of chronic population adjusted dose

Exposure estimates based on tolerance values, default processing

]

.

[Based on PRZM/EXAMS and SCI-GROW models, the estimated drinking water
exposure concentrations of boscalid for chronic exposure were 26 ppb for
surface water and 0.63 ppb for ground water.  Drinking water
contributions were assessed based on the maximum estimated boscalid
water concentrations (26 ug/L), and water consumption and body weights
reported in CSFII, using DEEM-FCID software.  The chronic estimated
water exposure values are summarized in Table 2.  Minimal exposure of
boscalid occurs through drinking water with < 1.0% cPAD for all
subpopulations.

Table 2. 	Results for Boscalid Chronic Water Exposure Analysis
Considering the Maximum Estimated Chronic Drinking Water Concentration
using

DEEM-FCID

Population	Water Exposure Estimate	%aPAD

Subgroups	(mg/kg b.w./day)

U.S. Population	0.000548	0.3

All Infants (< 1 year old)	0.001797	0.8

Children (1-2 years old)	0.000814	0.4

Children (3-5 years old)	0.000762	0.3

Children (6-12 years old)	0.000525	0.2

Youth (13-19 years old)	0.000396	0.2

Females (13-49 years old)	0.000510	0.2

Adults (20-49 years old)	0.000512	0.2

Adults (50+ years old)	0.000538	0.2

cPAD = chronic  population adjusted dose

Based on estimated acute surface water value of 26 ug/L

Acute Aggregate Exposure and Risk (Food and water)

Since the U.S. EPA Toxicological Endpoint Selection (TES) Committees has
evaluated the Boscalid toxicity data and determined there was no
toxicological endpoints for acute dietary exposure, the determination of
an acute aggregate exposure and risk evaluation was not required.

Short- and Intermediate Term Aggregate Exposure and Risk (food,water,
and residential)

Short- and intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account
residential exposure plus chronic exposure from food and water.
Residential exposure is used to refer to non-occupational and
non-dietary exposure.  No new residential uses are currently being
registered for boscalid that would increase non-dietary exposure.  The
residential exposure value used in this risk assessment was previously
determined by the EPA (Federal Register, Volume 68, No 146, July 30,
2003) and considers dermal exposure to adults from the golf course use.
 The MOE presented in the Table 3 is considered to be representative for
youth playing golf because youth and adults possess similar body surface
area to weight rations and because the dietary exposure for youth (13-19
years old) is less than that of the general US population.

Table 3. 	Estimated Short/Intermediate Term Aggregate Exposure and Risk
of Pyraclostrobin

Population	NOAEL (mg/kg/day)	Target MOE1	Food Exposure (mg/kg/day)	Water
Exposure (mg/kg/day)	Residential Exposure2 (mg/kg/day)	Total Exposure
(mg/kg/day)	MOE3

US	21.8	100	0.020463	0.000548	0.0008	0.021811	999

1 Target MOE is 100.

2  Residential Exposure = Exposure to adult while playing golf.

3 Aggregate MOE = (NOAEL / (Food + Water + Residential Exposure)

Chronic Aggregate Exposure and Risk (food and water)

The aggregate chronic risk includes residues of boscalid from food and
water (Table 4). Exposures from residential uses are not included in the
chronic aggregate assessment.  The results demonstrate there are no
safety concerns for any subpopulation based on established and new uses,
and that the results clearly meet the FQPA standard of reasonable
certainty of no harm.

  Table 4. 	Estimated Chronic Aggregate Exposure and Risk of Boscalid

Population Subgroup	cPAD (mg/kg/day)	Food Exposure (mg/kg/day)	Water
Exposure (mg/kg/day)	Total Exposure (mg/kg/day)	% cPAD

U.S. Population	0.218	0.020463	0.000548	0.021011	9.6

All Infants (< 1 yr old)	0.218	0.039264	0.001797	0.041061	18.8

Children 1-2 years	0.218	0.054918	0.000814	0.055732	25.6

Children 3-5 years	0.218	0.042551	0.000762	0.043313	19.9

Children 6 – 12 years	0.218	0.025727	0.000525	0.026252	12.0

Youth 13-19 years	0.218	0.014639	0.000396	0.015035	6.9

Adults 20-49 years	0.218	0.016299	0.00051	0.016809	7.7

Adults + 50	0.218	0.016182	0.000512	0.016694	7.7

Females 13 - 49	0.218	0.018738	0.000538	0.019276	8.8

]

	[Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) 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.’’ BAS 510 F is a foliar fungicide
chemically belonging to the carboxin class of fungicides. BAS 510 F acts
in the fungal cell by inhibiting mitochondrial respiration through
inhibition of the succinate-ubiquinone oxidase reductase system in
Complex II of the mitochondrial electron transport chain. BAS 510 F
shares this mode of action with only one other currently registered U.S.
pesticide - carboxin.

The EPA is currently developing methodology to perform cumulative risk
assessments. At this time, there is no available data to determine
whether BAS 510F has a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances or how to include this pesticide in a cumulative risk
assessment. Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a
cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, BAS
510F does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other
substances.]

E. Safety Determination

.  [Based on this risk assessment, BASF concludes that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population
from the aggregate exposure to pyraclostrobin residues.]

]

]

{</HD1>}

{</HD2>}

{<P>}

{</P>}

{<HD1>}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{</P>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{</P>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{</P>}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{</P>}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

{<P>}

{</P>}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{</P>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{</P>}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

{<P>}

{</P>}


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 181 (Friday, September 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56454-56455]
[FR Doc No: 2015-23425]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP15-14-001]

Texas Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Availability of the
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Southern Indiana Market
Lateral Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the
Southern Indiana Market Lateral Project, proposed by Texas Gas
Transmission, LLC (Texas Gas) in the above-referenced docket. Texas Gas
requests authorization to deliver approximately 53.5 million standard
cubic feet per day of natural gas from its existing Robards Junction
facilities in Henderson County, Kentucky to one of Texas Gas' customers
in Posey County, Indiana.
    The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the Southern Indiana Market Lateral
Project in accordance with the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval
of the proposed project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would
not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment.
    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers--Louisville District participated
as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the EA. Cooperating
agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to
resources potentially affected by a proposal and participate in the
NEPA analysis.
    The proposed Southern Indiana Market Lateral Project includes the
following facilities:
     About 30.6 miles of 10-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline
lateral;
     one new meter and regulator station;

     one pig \1\ launcher; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A ``pig'' is a tool that is inserted into and moves through
the pipeline, and is used for cleaning the pipeline, internal
inspections, or other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     one mainline valve.
    The FERC staff mailed copies of the EA 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 area; and parties to
this proceeding. In addition, the EA 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 EA are available for distribution and public
inspection at: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference
Room, 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-
8371.
    Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments
should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable
alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts.
The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To
ensure that the Commission has the opportunity to consider your
comments prior to making its decision on this project, it is important
that we receive your comments in Washington, DC on or before October
14, 2015.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file
your comments with the Commission. In all instances please reference
the project docket number (CP15-14-001) with your submission. The
Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert
staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature located 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 also file your comments electronically 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.'' You must select the type of filing you are making. If
you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select
``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426.
    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 385.214).\2\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See the previous discussion on the methods for filing
comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional information about the project 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-
14). 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>, or 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 which 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.

    Dated: September 14, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-23425 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


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

                             OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION
                                        															  May 11, 2018
MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: 	Review of the Chironomid Toxicity Test and Environmental Risk Assessment for S-15-0009

FROM: 	J. Gallagher
		Toxicologist
		Assessment Branch 1
		Risk Assessment Division (7403M)

TO:		J. Alwood
      Program Manager
      Chemical Control Division
      New Chemicals Management Branch (7405M)

THRU:	T. Wright
		Biologist
		Assessment Branch 5
		Risk Assessment Division (7403M)

Conclusions
   A. The submitted 28-day Chironomid sediment toxicity test on S-15-0009 is acceptable.
   B. In conjunction with results from submitted acute and chronic aquatic studies, physical/chemical/fate properties and discussions with the sponsor (                 ), the acute and chronic concentrations of concern for S-15-0009 are no effects at saturation (low environmental hazard).
   C. Environmental risks were not identified for S-15-0009.

Background
S-15-0009 (		;                               was submitted by                     in 2015. This amide (S-15-0009) has a reported maximum production volume of                 kg/yr and will be used
         The reported new use with this significant new use notice is for "releases to water (above 0.001 mg/L)."  In 2013,                 was dropped with a non 5(e) SNUR with a water trigger of 0.001 mg/L based on ecological hazard estimates.  Ecotoxicity hazard concerns were high based on the predicted chronic fish endpoint (ECOSAR v. 1.1). S-15-0009 is expected to be slightly soluble with a measured water solubility of 0.19 mg/L and a predicted log Kow of 6.33.  The estimated Henry's law constant is 1x10[-6] (slightly volatile from water) and sorption to soils/sediments is predicted to be strong.  The time to complete ultimate aerobic biodegradation for S-15-0009 is predicted to be weeks.                 submitted acceptable ecotoxicity test data (acute fish, chronic daphnia, and algae) to EPA in 2015, with the S-15-0009 submission, to fill some data endpoints (Attachment A).

When S-15-0009 went to FOCUS (July 30, 2015), it was placed into standard review for CCD to inform the submitter that the significant new use of releases to surface water exceeding 0.001 mg/L would not be permitted. Chronic risks to the environment were high due to releases to water where the chronic COC of 0.001 mg/L was exceeded
                days (SWC: 0.281 mg/L) during use operations. The required testing at FOCUS was the fish early-life stage toxicity test (FELS; OPPTS Test Guideline 850.1400).

Fish Early-Life Stage Toxicity Test Discussion
On February 2, 2016,                    submitted a FELS toxicity test protocol for S-15-0009.  The submitted protocol was not chemical-specific or tailored to S-15-0009 making it difficult to provide a detailed review. EPA reviewed the protocol and submitted it to         (See Attachment B).  Following EPA's review, the submitter encountered extensive challenges exposing fish to S-15-0009 in flow through or semi-static conditions, per test guidelines, while developing the experimental design for the FELS toxicity test.              had several conversations with EPA (see separate attachment entitled, "EPA Discussions FELS test for SNUN substance.") to discuss their challenges.  Due to the multiple problems that the company was having keeping S-15-0009 in test solution (using many approaches) in conjunction with the physical/chemical/fate properties, EPA agreed to waive the chronic fish study (and assessed S-15-0009/                   as no effects at saturation in the aqueous environment) in place of a Chironomid sediment/water toxicity test with robust analytical methods. On March 29, 2018,            submitted a Chironomid toxicity test which is reviewed below.

Chironomid Toxicity Test Review
Scymaris, Ltd. conducted a 28-day sediment-water toxicity test with the midge (Chironomus riparius) and S-15-0009 (purity: 99.62% Amide).  This study followed OECD 218 (2004).  Four replicates containing 20 larvae were exposed to a blank control, solvent control (tetrahydrofuran; THF), or the test substance at a nominal concentration of 62.5, 125, 250, 500, or 1000 mg/kg (dry weight).  Corresponding time-weighted mean measured concentrations of the test substance were 39.5, 74.0, 172, 363, and 788 mg/kg (dry weight), as determined via LC-MS analysis (robust analytical method).  The LOQs for sediment analysis were 0.04 mg/kg for the blank control, 0.04-0.06 mg/kg for the solvent control, 4.10-5.24 mg/kg for the 62.5 mg/kg treatment, 3.79-5.31 for the 125 mg/kg treatment, 4.02-4.81 mg/kg for the 250 mg/kg treatment, 3.81-7.48 mg/kg for the 500 mg/kg treatment, and 36.63-42.06 mg/kg for the 1000 mg/kg treatment.  The composition of the test sediment by dry weight was 5% sphagnum peat moss, 75% quartz sand, and 20% kaolinite clay.  A proportion (50%) of the dry sand component of the sediment for each treatment was added to a glass crystallizing dish where it received 10 mL of test item dissolved in tetrahydrofuran (THF) at the appropriate nominal concentration.  The stock solutions were pipetted onto the surface of the sand, and the solvent was allowed to evaporate overnight.  The remaining quantity of sand was then mixed with kaolinite clay, conditioned peat, and reconstituted water in individual bottles.  The amount of reconstituted water added to the sediment was that which liquefied it sufficiently to obtain good mixing on a tumble mill, using known and equal additions to all bottles.  The contents of the bottles were mixed on a tumble mill for approximately 15.5 hours before being dispensed to the test vessels.  For each treatment, approximately 133.5 g (wet weight) spiked sediment was weighed into each test vessel and reconstituted water was added to a total volume of 400 mL.  After a settlement period, vessels were provided with gentle aeration and then allowed to stabilize and equilibrate for 7 days prior to the exposure phase.  The test vessels were glass beakers fitted with lids consisting of inverted, plastic beakers with meshed air vents acting as traps to retain emerged adults.  Over the course of the study in the overlying water, temperatures ranged from 19.3-19.7ºC, pH ranged from 7.2-8.0, and dissolved oxygen ranged from 8.5-9.2 mg/L.  The water hardness of the overlying water ranged from 18-26 mg CaCO3/L.  Facility background data for the overlying water indicated a hardness of 89 mg CaCO3/L and TOC < 0.7 mg/L.  No significant effects were observed on development rates, total number emerged, or sex ratio of adults.  All test replicates showed no visible non-emerged larvae with the exception of one replicate at the 250 mg/kg treatment level, which showed no emergence; the 19 non-emergent larvae in this replicate were excluded from all result determinations.  The mean time to first emergence ranged from 16-18 days in the test groups and was 16 days in the control group.  Based on time-weighted mean measured test concentrations, the 28-day NOEC and LOEC were 788 mg/kg (dry weight) and > 788 mg/kg (dry weight), respectively. This is an acceptable test.
28-day NOEC = 788 mg/kg (dry weight)
28-day LOEC > 788 mg/kg (dry weight)

Environmental Hazard and Risk: Summary
Since 2015,                        submitted four acceptable toxicity tests (acute fish, algae, chronic aquatic invertebrate, and a chronic sediment toxicity test) to EPA on S-15-0009.  Based on the results from these tests, in conjunction with physical/chemical/fate properties and discussions between                         and EPA, the acute and chronic concentrations of concern for S-15-0009 are no effects at saturation (low environmental hazard). From the July 29, 2015 exposure report, the predicted surface water concentrations of S-15-0009 are 0.486 mg/L (Use: max acute eco) and 0.281 mg/L (Use: probabilistic dilution model).  As a result, environmental risks were not identified for S-15-0009.

                                 Attachment A

Ecotoxicity Test Data Results for S-15-0009:

Fish Ecotoxicity Test:
Harlan Laboratories, Ltd. conducted a 96-hr acute toxicity test with rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and S-15-0009 (purity: 99.3%) under semi-static conditions with daily renewal.  The water solubility of the test substance was reported to be 0.0056 mg/L under test conditions.  This study followed OECD test guideline No. 203 (1992) and Method C.1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 440/2008.  Following a range-finding test, single replicates of seven O. mykiss were exposed to a dilution water control (dechlorinated laboratory tap water) or the test substance at a single nominal concentration of 100% v/v saturated solution.  Measured concentrations of test substance were below the limit of quantitation of the analytical method (HPLC-MS; LOQ = 0.010 mg/L).  To prepare the saturated solution (100 mg/L), a nominal amount of test item (2250 mg) was dispersed in 22.5 liters of test water with the aid of propeller stirring at approximately 1500 rpm for 24 hours.  After 24 hours, the stirring was stopped and any undissolved test item was removed by filtration through a 0.2 um Sartorious Sartopore filter (first approximate 2 liters discarded in order to pre-condition the filter).  The test vessels were covered to reduce evaporation.  The test item preparations were observed to be clear colorless solutions throughout the test.  Over the course of testing, temperature ranged from 13-15°C, pH ranged from 7.4-8.1, and dissolved oxygen ranged from 9.0-10.7 mg/L.  The dilution water hardness was 140 mg CaCO3/L.  A loading rate of 0.58 g fish/L was reported.  No mortality was observed in the control and test replicates at the saturation limit.  Based on the nominal concentration, the 96-hour LC50 was greater than 100% v/v saturated solution and determined to be no effects at saturation (NES).  This was an acceptable test.
96-hour LC50 = NES

Daphnid Ecotoxicity Test:
Harlan Laboratories, Ltd. conducted a 21-day reproduction test with Daphnia magna and S-15-0009 (purity: 99.3%) under semi-static conditions with renewal 3 times per week.  The water solubility of the test substance was reported to be 0.0056 mg/L under test conditions.  This study followed OECD test guideline No. 211 (2012), referenced as Method C.20 of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 440/2008 and OPPTS 850.1300.  Following a range-finding test, ten replicates of single daphnids were exposed to the dilution water control (Elendt M7 medium) or the test substance at a single nominal concentration of 100% v/v saturated solution.  The time-weighted mean measured test concentration was 0.0038 mg/L, based on HPLC-MS analysis (LOQ = 0.0037 mg/L).  To prepare the saturated solution (100 mg/L), a nominal amount of test item (1100 mg) was dispersed in 11 liters of test water with the aid of propeller stirring at approximately 1500 rpm for 24 hours.  After 24 hours, the stirring was stopped and any undissolved test item was removed by filtration through a 0.2 um Sartorius Sartopore filter (first approximate 2 liters discarded in order to pre-condition the filter).  Test vessels were covered with plastic lids to reduce evaporation.  At the start and throughout the test, all control and test solutions were observed to be clear, colorless solutions.  Over the course of testing, temperature ranged from 20-21°C, pH ranged from 7.2-8.2, and dissolved oxygen ranged from 8.3-9.5 mg/L.  The dilution water hardness ranged from 226-344 mg CaCO3/L.  A loading rate of 10 daphnids/L was calculated.  No mortality was observed in the control group, and 10% mortality was observed in the test group.  No significant impairment of reproduction was observed in the test group.  Based on the time-weighted mean measured test concentration, the 21-day EC50 value for immobilization and reproduction was greater than 0.0038 mg/L, and therefore greater than saturation (NES).  The NOEC and LOEC values were 0.0038 and greater than 0.0038 mg/L, respectively. This was an acceptable test.
21-day EC50 (immobilization and reproduction) = NES
21-day NOEC = 0.0038 mg/L
21-day LOEC >= 0.0038 mg/L
Aquatic invertebrate ChV = NES

Algal Ecotoxicity Test:
Harlan Laboratories, Ltd. conducted a 72-hour growth inhibition test with green algae (Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata) and S-15-0009 (purity: 99.30%) under static conditions.  The water solubility of the test substance was reported to be 0.0056 mg/L under test conditions.  This study followed OECD test guideline No. 201 (2006), referenced as Method C.3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 761/2009.  Following a range-finding test, three replicates of P. subcapitata (5 x 10[3] cells/mL) were exposed to the test substance at a nominal concentration of 6.25, 12.5, 25, 50, or 100% v/v saturated solution.  HPLC-MS analysis of the 10 and 100% v/v saturated solution test preparations at 0 and 72 hours showed measured test concentrations of less than the limit of quantitation of (LOQ = 0.010 mg/L).  An additional six replicates of P. subcapitata were exposed to a culture medium control.  The algae were illuminated with a light intensity of approximately 7000 lux with constant shaking.  To prepare the test solutions (100 mg/L), a nominal amount of test item (1100 mg) was dispersed in 11 liters of culture medium with the aid of propeller stirring at approximately 1500 rpm for 24 hours.  After 24 hours the stirring was stopped and any undissolved test item was removed by filtration through a 0.2 um Sartorius Sartopore filter (first approximately 2 liters discarded in order to pre-condition the filter) to give a 100% v/v saturated solution.  A series of dilutions was made from this saturated solution to give stock solutions of 50, 25, 12.5 and 6.25% v/v saturated solution.  The stock solutions and each of the prepared concentrations were inverted several times to ensure adequate mixing and homogeneity.  Test flasks were plugged with polyurethane foam bungs.  At the start of the test, all control and test cultures were observed to be clear colorless solutions.  After the 72-hour test period, all control and test cultures were observed to be green dispersions.  Over the course of testing, temperature was maintained at 24+-1°C and pH ranged from 7.4-8.1.  The mean cell density of control cultures increased by a factor of 91 within 72 hours.  No abnormalities were detected in control and test cultures at microscopic inspection.  Based on nominal concentrations, the 72-hour EC50 was greater than 100% v/v saturated solution for growth rate and yield and determined to be no effects at saturation (NES).  The NOEC and LOEC were 100% v/v saturated solution and greater than 100% v/v saturated solution or NES, respectively. This was an acceptable test.
72-hour EC50 (growth rate and yield) = NES
72-hour NOEC (growth rate and yield) = 100% v/v saturated solution
72-hour LOEC (growth rate and yield) >= 100% v/v saturated solution
Algal ChV = NES

The acute fish (96-hour LC50 = NES), chronic daphnid (ChV [immobilization and reproductions] = NES) and algal (72-hour EC50 (growth rate and yield) = NES and ChV = NES) toxicity tests conducted with S-15-0009 were considered acceptable for the purposes of concentration of concern determination within OPPTS.  It is worth noting that ecotoxicity test data (on an analog) were submitted with           in 2013.  The analog test data was not acceptable because the test chemical used in the toxicity tests was not an appropriate analog based on differences (2 log units) in the octanol/water partitioning coefficients (Kow).   For comparative purposes, the fish (96-hr LC50), acute daphnia (48-hr EC50), and algal (96-hr EC50) toxicity values, based on SARs for S-15-00009, are NES, NES, and 0.12 mg/L or NES, respectively.  In addition, based on the same SAR equations (Amides), the fish, daphnia, and algal chronic values for S-15-0009 are 0.001 mg/L, 0.01 mg/L, and 0.03 mg/L or NES, respectively.  The acute concentration of concern (CoC) is no effects at saturation, based on test data and SAR predictions.  The chronic concentration of concern for S-15-0009 is calculated by dividing the QSAR-derived fish chronic value (0.001 mg/L) by an uncertainty factor of 10 yielding 0.1 ug/L or 0.1 ppb.  The lowest default chronic CoC for S-15-0009 is 1 ppb and will be used for chronic CoC determination.

Acute COC = NES
Chronic COC = 1 ppb

                                 Attachment B

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

                             OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION
                                   															  February 23, 2016
MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: 	Fish Early-Life Stage Toxicity Test Protocol Review for S-15-0009

FROM: 	J. Gallagher
		Toxicologist
		Assessment Branch 1
		Risk Assessment Division (7403M)

TO:		J. Alwood
      Program Manager
      Chemical Control Division
      New Chemicals Management Branch (7405M)

THRU:	K. Eisenreich
		Toxicologist
		Associate Branch Chief, AB4
		Risk Assessment Division (7403M)

Background
S-15-0009 (         ;                   was submitted by               in 2015 and went to FOCUS on July 30, 2015.  This amide (S-15-0009) has a reported maximum production volume of                             and will be used as a

The reported new use with this significant new use notice is for "releases to water (above 0.001 mg/L)."  S-15-0009 is expected to be slightly soluble with a measured water solubility of 0.19 mg/L and a predicted log Kow of 6.33.  The estimated Henry's law constant is 1x10[-6] (slightly volatile from water) and sorption to soils/sediments is predicted to be strong.  The time to complete ultimate aerobic biodegradation for S-15-0009 is predicted to be weeks.  When S-15-0009 went to FOCUS, it was placed into standard review for CCD to inform the submitter that the significant new use of releases to surface water exceeding 0.001 mg/L would not be permitted.  In 2013,             was dropped with a non 5(e) SNUR with a water trigger of 0.001 mg/L based on ecological hazard estimates.  Ecotoxicity hazard concerns were high based on the predicted chronic fish endpoint (ECOSAR v. 1.1).               submitted acceptable ecotoxicity test data (acute fish, chronic daphnia, and algae) to EPA in 2015 to fill some data endpoints.  Chronic risks to the environment were high due to releases to water where the chronic COC of 0.001 mg/L was exceeded 200/200 days (SWC: 0.280 mg/L) during use operations. The required testing at FOCUS was the fish early-life stage toxicity test (OPPTS Test Guideline 850.1400).

Fish Early-Life Stage Toxicity Test Protocol Review
On February 2, 2016,                 submitted a fish early-life stage toxicity test protocol for S-15-0009.  The submitted protocol is not chemical-specific or tailored to S-15-0009.  As a result, it is difficult to provide a detailed review.  Overall, the protocol follows OPPTS Test Guideline 850.1400 and OECD Test Guideline 210.  In addition, EPA recommends following OECD Test Guideline 23.  EPA strongly recommends analytical quantification of S-15-0009 and reporting of the toxicity endpoint values (EC50, NOEC, LOEC, etc.) as mean measured test concentrations.  In addition, the protocol references water accommodating fraction (WAF) testing if the test material is not very water soluble.  EPA does not recommend WAF testing for S-15-0009, but does recommend that the submitter/testing laboratory clearly describe if there are water solubility challenges with S-15-0009.  Earlier toxicity test submissions had water solubility challenges with S-15-0009 even though the "measured" water solubility (provided by                 ) was 0.19 mg/L (slightly soluble).  Furthermore, conducting the definitive test with flow-through conditions is recommended.  Finally, EPA does not recommend filtering of stock /test solutions.  If particulates are found in the media, EPA recommends centrifugation of the stock /test solution.  EPA looks forward to reviewing the aquatic toxicity test results for S-15-0009 in the near future.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 62790]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26077]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2607-000.
    Applicants: CenterPoint Energy--Mississippi River Transmission,
LLC.
    Description: CenterPoint Energy--Mississippi River Transmission,
LLC's Penalty Revenue Crediting Filing.
    Filed Date: 09/28/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110928-5088.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 11, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2608-000.
    Applicants: Rager Mountain Storage Company LLC.
    Description: Rager Mountain Storage Company LLC submits tariff
filing per 154.203: Rager Mountain Storage Company LLC FERC Gas Tariff
Volume No. 1 to be effective 11/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/28/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110928-5122.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 11, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2609-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC.
    Description: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC submits
tariff filing per 154.203: Compliance Filing--Commission Order in
Docket Nos. RP10-608 and RP10-613, to be effective 10/29/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/28/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110928-5124.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 11, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2610-000.
    Applicants: East Cheyenne Gas Storage, LLC.
    Description: East Cheyenne Gas Storage, LLC submits tariff filing
per 154.602: ECGS cancellation, to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 09/28/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110928-5136.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 11, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2611-000.
    Applicants: Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.
    Description: Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. submits
tariff filing per 154.204: Scheduling Priorities--Restore Pre-10/1/11
Language (Related to RP11-2135) to be effective 10/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/29/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110929-5021.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 11, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2612-000.
    Applicants: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC.
    Description: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC submits tariff
filing per 154.204: Antero 2 to Tenaska 209 Capacity Release Negotiated
Rate Agreement Filing to be effective 10/1/2011 under RP11-2612 Filing
Type: 570.
    Filed Date: 09/29/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110929-5029.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 11, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2613-000.
    Applicants: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC.
    Description: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC submits tariff
filing per 154.204: Antero 3 to Tenaska 210 Capacity Release Negotiated
Rate Agreement Filing to be effective 10/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/29/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110929-5030.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 11, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2614-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP submits tariff filing
per 154.204: CenterPoint 34682-6 Amendment to Negotiated Rate Agreement
to be effective 10/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/29/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110929-5031.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 11, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2615-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP submits tariff filing
per 154.204: HK 37367 to Sequent 39121 Capacity Release Negotiated Rate
Agreement Filing to be effective 9/29/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/29/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110929-5032.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 11, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2616-000.
    Applicants: Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company.
    Description: Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company submits
tariff filing per 154.204: Non-Conforming Negotiated Rate Agreements--
Bear Paw to be effective 10/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/29/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110929-5033.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 11, 2011.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, and service can be found at:
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other
information, call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-
8659.

    Dated: September 29, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-26077 Filed 10-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P