UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

	                 OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES

AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

MEMORANDUM

	28 December 2006

	Subject:	Desmedipham.  Registrant’s Response to Desmedipham Tolerance
Reassessment Eligibility Decision (TRED).  Submission of Additional
Sugar Beet Field Trials.

DP Barcodes:	327740	Decision Number:	364160

PC Code:	104801	MRID No.:	46773001

42516500

40 CFR 180.	353

Chemical Class:	Phenyl-carbamate

	From:	P. Yvonne Barnes, Chemist

		Reregistration Branch 2

		Health Effects Division (7509P)

	Through:	Alan Nielsen, Branch Senior Scientist

		Reregistration Branch 2

		Health Effects Division (7509P)

	To:

		Nathan Mottl, CRM

		Reregistration Branch 1

		Special Review and

		Reregistration Division (7508P)

This document was originally prepared under contract by Dynamac
Corporation (1910 Sedwick Road, Building 100, Durham, NC 27713;
submitted 08/25/2006).  The document has been reviewed by the Health
Effects Division (HED) and revised to reflect current Office of
Pesticide Programs (OPP) Policies.

Executive Summary

Desmedipham is a phenyl-carbamate herbicide (Group 5 herbicide)
currently used for the control of annual broadleaf weeds in sugar beets.
Permanent tolerances are established for residues of desmedipham [40 CFR
§180.353]  per se at 0.2 ppm in/on sugar beet roots and at 15 ppm in/on
sugar beet tops, and time-limited tolerances, set to expire 06/30/08.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Desmedipham is currently registered to Bayer
CropScience for use on sugar beets and is marketed under the trade names
Betanex®, Betamix®, and Progress® Herbicides.  All three products are
EC formulations; Bayer has canceled its registrations for wettable
powder (WP) formulations.  Betanex® is a 1.3 lb/gal EC, and Betamix®
and Progress® are multiple active ingredient (MAI) formulations
containing 0.6 to 0.65 lb/gal of desmedipham.  The current use on sugar
beets allows for multiple foliar applications totaling up to 1.95 lb
ai/A/season, with a minimum retreatment interval (RTI) of 5 days and a
preharvest interval (PHI) of 75 days.

The nature of the desmedipham residues in plants and animals is
adequately understood.  Based on an acceptable phenmedipham sugar beet
metabolism study, the Agency determined that phenmedipham and
desmedipham should be regulated in the same manner.  Therefore, the
residue of concern in plants is desmedipham per se.  Based on acceptable
poultry and ruminant metabolism studies reflecting oral dosing of
14C-desmedipham, the Agency also determined that desmedipham per se
should be the regulated residue in animal commodities.

The LC/MS/MS method (Method AL/01/02) is available as a potential
tolerance enforcement method.  The method has a validated limit of
quantitation (LOQ) of 0.05 ppm for desmedipham in/on beet roots and
tops, and the method has undergone a successful independent laboratory
validation (ILV) trial.  However, this method must still undergo an
Agency method validation trial.  Samples from the available sugar beet
field trials were analyzed using either the above LC/MS/MS method or an
adequate HPLC/UV method (Method D23023), which was validated in
conjunction with the analysis of the field trial samples.  The LOQ for
the HPLC/UV method is 0.05 ppm for desmedipham in/on sugar beet roots
and tops.

Adequate data are available supporting the stability of desmedipham in
frozen sugar beet roots and tops for up to 8 months; however, samples
from the most recent field trials were stored for up to 14 months.
Bayer has cited data indicating that desmedipham residues are stable for
up to 24 months in frozen roots and tops, but these data have not yet
been submitted.  The 24-month month storage stability study should be
submitted to the Agency for review.

If acceptable storage stability data are provided, the available sugar
beet field trial data are adequate and will support the current use
patterns.  The number and geographic distribution of the field trials
are adequate, and the appropriate samples were collected at the
specified PHI.  In the five field trials referenced in MRID 42516500
dated 1992 and the nine field trials conducted in 2004, desmedipham (1.3
lb/gal EC) was applied to sugar beets as two broadcast foliar
applications at 0.95 to 1.09 lb ai/A/application, at RTIs of 5 to 7
days, for a total of 1.93 to 2.09 lb ai/A (1x rate).  The initial
application was made from the 6-leaf stage to full crop cover (BBCH
stages 16 to 39), and all applications were made using ground equipment,
without the use of any adjuvant.  In the trials referenced in MRID
42516500, single control and treated samples of tops were collected from
each of the 5 trials at 75 days after the last application (DAT), and in
the 2004 studies, single control and duplicate treated samples of tops
and roots were collected at 71 to 75 DAT.  In the trials referenced in
MRID 42516500, residues of desmedipham in/on sugar beet tops were <0.05
ppm to 6.54 ppm.  In the 2004 trials, residues of desmedipham in/on
sugar beets were <0.05 ppm for the 18 root samples and <0.05 ppm to
0.135 ppm for the 18 tops samples, with only 5 of the 18 samples of tops
having residues >LOQ.  Average residues were 0.025 ppm for roots and
0.045 ppm for tops from the 2004 trials.

Using   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 the reassessed tolerance of 5 ppm for sugar
beet tops, the maximum theoretical dietary burden of desmedipham for
beef and dairy cattle are 4.3 ppm and 2.2 ppm, respectively.  Based upon
the data from the available ruminant metabolism study, in which goats
were dosed at 10 ppm (1.1x), the Agency has concluded that infinite
residues of desmedipham are unlikely to occur in milk, meat and
meat-byproducts of ruminants. Therefore, a cattle feeding study and
tolerances for livestock commodities are not required. In addition, no
tolerances are necessary for hog or poultry commodities as sugar beet
commodities are not utilized in swine or poultry diets.

Although additional information is required to upgrade the existing
confined rotational crop study, the available data   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1
indicate that limited and/or extensive field rotational crop studies are
not required to support the existing uses on sugar beets, and that
rotational crop restrictions are not necessary.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Regulatory Recommendations and Residue Chemistry
Deficiencies

Provided that adequate storage stability data are submitted, the
requirements for desmedipham residue data on sugar beets are fulfilled
and tolerances can be reassessed.  However, in addition to the required
storage stability data, the following minor deficiencies still require
resolution.

•	The current tolerance enforcement method listed in PAM Vol. II for
desmedipham is not adequate.  However, an adequate LC/MS/MS method
(Method AL/01/02) is available that has undergone a successful ILV
trial.  This method should be forwarded to the Analytical Chemistry
Branch for a method validation trial.

•	Storage stability data are required to support frozen storage
intervals of up to 14 months for sugar beet roots and tops.  The
registrant should submit the existing 24-month storage stability study
for review.

•	Although data from the available   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 confined
rotational crop study indicate that rotational crop restrictions are not
required, the Desmedipham RED (08/95) noted that sample storage
information and supporting storage stability data are required in order
to upgrade the existing confined study to acceptable.

Based on the available residue data, HED recommends reassessing
tolerances for residues of desmedipham in/on sugar beet roots and tops
to 0.1 ppm and 5 ppm, respectively.

Background

Desmedipham is a phenyl-carbamate herbicide (Group 5 herbicide) used for
the control of annual broadleaf weeds in sugar beets.  The
Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for desmedipham was issued on
 SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1  08/21/95, and the Tolerance Reassessment
Eligibility Decision (TRED) was issued on 01/25/05.  Permanent
tolerances are established for residues of desmedipham at 0.2 ppm in/on
sugar beet roots and tops [40 CFR §180.353(a)].  Time-limited
tolerances are also established for residues of desmedipham in/on red
(garden) beets at 0.2 ppm for roots and at 15 ppm for tops; these
tolerances are currently set to expire on 06/30/08 [40 CFR
§180.353(b)].

Bayer CropScience, the basic producer of desmedipham, has submitted
additional field trial data on sugar beets in response to deficiencies
noted in the Desmedipham TRED.  The nomenclature and physicochemical
properties of desmedipham are presented below in Tables 1 and 2.

TABLE 1.	Desmedipham Nomenclature.

Compound

Common name	Desmedipham

Company experimental name	AE B038107

IUPAC name	ethyl 3-phenylcarbamoyloxycarbanilate

CAS name	ethyl [3-[[(phenylamino)carbonyl]oxy]phenyl]carbamate

CAS registry number	13684-56-5

End-use products (EP)	Betanex® Herbicide (1.3 lb/gal EC; EPA Reg. No.
264-620)

Betamix® Herbicide (0.65 lb/gal EC; EPA Reg. No. 264-621)

Progress® Herbicide (0.6 lb/gal EC; EPA Reg. No. 264-632)

TABLE 2.	Physicochemical Properties of the Technical Grade Desmedipham.

Parameter	Value	Reference

Melting point/range	118-119 ° C	Provided in MRID 46773001

pH	Not soluble in water

	Density	1.320 g/ml

	Water solubility (g/L) at RT	pH 7 -  0.007

pH 9 -  0.0134

pH 11 - 0.00442

	Solvent solubility (g/L) at RT	Acetone 285

Methanol 187

Ethyl Acetate 181

Methylene Chloride 19.9

Toluene 1.2

Hexane 0.02

	Vapor pressure	<-1.5 Torr (25 ° C)

	Dissociation constant, pKa	Does not dissociate in water

	Octanol/water partition coefficient, Log (KOW)	187

	UV/visible absorption spectrum	Primary     273nm

Secondary 203 nm

Tertiary     236 nm

860.1200 Directions for Use

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Desmedipham is currently registered to Bayer
CropScience and is marketed under the trade names BETANEX®, BETAMIX®,
and PROGRESS® Herbicides (EPA Reg. Nos. 264-620, 264-621, and 264-632).
 All three products are EC formulations:  BETANEX® is a 1.3 lb/gal EC
containing only desmedipham; BETAMIX® is a multiple active ingredient
(MAI) formulation containing 0.65 lb/gal each of desmedipham and
phenmedipham; and PROGRESS® is also a MAI formulation containing 0.6
lb/gal each of desmedipham, phenmedipham, and ethofumesate.  Bayer is no
longer supporting the use of wettable powder (WP) formulations of
desmedipham.  The current use directions for sugar beets are summarized
in Table 3.

Table 3.  Summary of Existing Use Directions for Desmedipham on Sugar
Beets.

Applic. Timing, Type, and Equipment 1	Formulation

[EPA Reg. No.]	Application. Rate

(lb ai/A)	Max. No. Applic. per Season	Max. Seasonal Rate

(lb ai/A)	PHI

(days)	Use Directions and Limitations 2

Conventional broadcast foliar applications beginning at cotyledon stage
using ground or aerial equipment.	1.3 lb/gal EC

[264-620]

	0.73-1.20

+

0.73-0.98	2	1.95	75	Do not exceed 0.24 lb ai/A when beets are at
cotyledon stage.

Apply in a minimum of 5 or 20 gal/A for aerial and ground applications.
The use of spray adjuvants is prohibited. The specified RTI 7 days.

Multiple low rate broadcast foliar applications beginning at cotyledon
stage using ground or aerial equipment

0.24-0.73	NS

	Use pattern not allowed in CA.  Do not exceed 0.24 lb ai/A when beets
are at cotyledon stage.  Apply in a minimum of 5 or 10 gal/A for aerial
and ground applications. The use of spray adjuvants is prohibited.  The
specified RTI 5 days.

Multiple “micro” rate broadcast foliar applications beginning at
cotyledon stage using ground or aerial equipment

0.08-0.12	3+

	Use pattern not allowed in CA.  Do not exceed 0.08 lb ai/A, prior to
4-leaf stage.  Apply in a minimum of 5 or 10 gal/A for aerial and ground
applications.  Applications may include the use of modified seed oil at
1.5% spray volume.  The specified RTI 5 days.

Conventional broadcast foliar applications beginning at cotyledon stage
using ground or aerial equipment.	0.65 lb/gal EC 3

[264-621]

	0.36-0.61

+

0.36-0.49	2	0.98	75	Do not exceed 0.12 lb ai/A when beets are at
cotyledon stage.  Apply in a minimum of 5 or 20 gal/A for aerial and
ground applications.  The use of spray adjuvants is prohibited.  The
specified RTI 7 days.

Multiple low rate broadcast foliar applications beginning at cotyledon
stage using ground or aerial equipment

0.24-0.36	NS

	Use pattern not allowed in CA.  Do not exceed 0.12 lb ai/A when beets
are at cotyledon stage.  Apply in a minimum of 5 or 10 gal/A for aerial
and ground applications.  The use of spray adjuvants is prohibited.  The
specified RTI 5 days.

Multiple “micro” rate broadcast foliar applications beginning at
cotyledon stage using ground or aerial equipment

0.08-0.12	3+

	Use pattern not allowed in CA.  Do not exceed 0.08 lb ai/A, prior to
4-leaf stage. Apply in a minimum of 5 or 10 gal/A for aerial and ground
applications. Applications may include the use of modified seed oil at
1.5% spray volume.  The specified RTI 5 days.

Conventional broadcast foliar applications beginning at cotyledon stage
using ground or aerial equipment.	0.6 lb/gal EC 4

[264-632]

	0.24-0.38

+

0.24-0.38	2	0.65	75	Do not exceed 0.11 lb ai/A when beets are at
cotyledon stage.  Apply in a minimum of 5 or 20 gal/A for aerial and
ground applications.  The use of spray adjuvants is prohibited.  The
specified RTI 7 days.

Multiple low rate broadcast foliar applications beginning at cotyledon
stage using ground or aerial equipment

0.11-0.24	NS

	Use pattern not allowed in CA

Do not exceed 0.24 lb ai/A when beets are at cotyledon stage.

Apply in a minimum of 5 or 10 gal/A for aerial and ground applications.
The use of spray adjuvants is prohibited.  The specified RTI 5 days.

Multiple “micro” rate broadcast foliar applications beginning at
cotyledon stage using ground or aerial equipment

0.08-0.12	3+

	Use pattern not allowed in CA.  Do not exceed 0.08 lb ai/A, prior to
4-leaf stage.  Apply in a minimum of 5 or 10 gal/A for aerial and ground
applications.  Application may include the use of modified seed oil at
1.5% spray volume.  The specified RTI 5 days.

1              Applications through irrigation systems are prohibited.

2	All three labels prohibit rotation to cereal grain crops for 120 days
following postemergence application.

3	This formulation is a MAI also containing 0.65 lb/gal of phenmedipham.

4	This formulation is a MAI also containing 0.6 lb/gal each of
phenmedipham and ethofumesate.

RTI = retreatment interval.

NS = not specified.

Conclusion:  The current use directions on all three labels are similar,
with the two MAI formulations having proportionally lower use rates than
the 1.3 lb/gal EC.  The use directions are for sugar beets are supported
by the available field trial data.

860.1300 Nature of the Residue – Plants

DP Barcode D216436, Desmedipham RED, D. Miller, 08/18/95

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The qualitative nature of the residue in plants is
adequately understood based on an acceptable sugar beet metabolism study
using phenmedipham.  The Agency has concluded that that the metabolism
of desmedipham in plants mirrors that of phenmedipham, as the two
compounds are structurally similar, and that the two compounds should be
regulated in the same manner.  Therefore, the residue of concern for
desmedipham in plants is desmedipham per se.

860.1300 Nature of the Residue – Livestock

DP Barcode D216436, Desmedipham RED, D. Miller, 08/18/95

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The nature of the residues in animals is
adequately understood based on acceptable poultry and ruminant
metabolism studies reflecting oral dosing of 14C-desmedipham. The Agency
(DP Barcode D213531, D. Miller, 04/10/95) has determined that the
residue to be regulated in animals is desmedipham per se.

≤0.01 ppm to 0.024 ppm in fat, and ≥0.01 ppm in muscle.  Residues in
milk plateaued at 0.187 ppm after 3 days.  Identified residues comprised
85.8% of the TRR in kidney, 76.4% of the TRR in milk, and 25.5% of the
TRR in liver.  In kidney and milk, identified residues were
ethyl-N-3-hydroxyphenyl carbamate (EHPC) (76.7% TRR, 0.24 ppm in kidney
and 75.1% TRR, 0.14 ppm in milk) and 3-acetamidophenol (9.1% TRR, 0.03
ppm in kidney and 1.3% TRR, <0.01 ppm in milk).  In liver, the principal
residues were EHPC (13.5% TRR, <0.01 ppm) and 3-aminophenol (12.0% TRR,
<0.01 ppm).  In omental and perirenal fat, extracted residues were <0.01
ppm and included EHPC, desmedipham, 3-acetamidophenol, and
3-aminophenol.

In the poultry metabolism study, laying hens were dosed orally for 10
consecutive days at a dose of 1.5 mg/hen/day.  Radioactive residues in
excreta accounted for approximately 85.3% to 96.6 % of the administered
dose.  During the dosing period, TRRs were 0.001 ppm to 0.017 ppm in egg
whites.  The TRR in a pooled egg yolk sample collected on Day 10 was
0.046 ppm.  Identified residues in yolks were 3-aminophenol (46.5% TRR,
0.022 ppm) and EHPC (26.5% TRR, 0.012 ppm) and with trace amounts of
3-acetamidophenol and desmedipham.  All other tissues contained TRR
values of less than 0.01 ppm.

860.1340 Residue Analytical Methods

DP Barcode D216436, Desmedipham RED, D. Miller, 08/18/95

45942201.der, S. Kinard, 07/08/04

The Agency previously determined that the existing GC/ECD method for
determining total residues of desmedipham in sugar beets (Method I in
SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 PAM Vol. II, Section 180.353) is not adequate for
tolerance enforcement, as naturally-occurring anilines may interfere
with the analysis.  However, an adequate HPLC/UV detection method
(Desmedipham Method R75) was available, which had undergone a successful
ILV trial.  For this method, residues in/on beets are extracted by
refluxing in acidified ethyl acetate.  Residues of desmedipham are then
filtered, concentrated and cleaned up using Florisil and C18 columns.
Purified residues are redissolved in acetonitrile:water (1:1, v:v),
acidified, and analyzed by HPLC using a C18 column with UV detection
(235 nm).  The validated LOQ for desmedipham is 0.05 ppm in/on roots and
tops, and the reported LOD is 0.004 ppm.

The Agency concluded that this HPLC/UV method could be adequate for
tolerance enforcement provided that the registrant submit additional
supporting raw data for the method and conduct an interference study
using propham and phenmedipham.  After submission of the requested data,
the Agency would then conduct a method validation trial.

MS/MS, using a Hypersil column with a gradient of 0.1% acetic acid to
acetonitrile, and residues were quantified using the 301→182 m/z
transition.  Adequate method recoveries were obtained using samples of
tops and roots fortified with desmedipham at 0.05 ppm to 2.5 ppm, and
the method was also successfully validated in an ILV trial using sugar
beet tops fortified at 0.05 ppm to 1.0 ppm.  The validated LOQ is 0.05
ppm and the reported LOD is 0.008 ppm for roots and 0.023 ppm for tops.
As the this method is more specific then the earlier HPLC/UV method and
does not require the use of a confirmatory method or conducting an
interference study, the LC/MS/MS method (Method AL/01/02) should be
forwarded to the Analytical Chemistry Branch for a petition method
validation trial.

Samples from the sugar beet field trials were analyzed using adequate
data collection methods.  Samples of tops from the sugar beet field
trials referenced in MRID 42516500/01 dated 1992 were analyzed using the
HPLC/UV method (Desmedipham Method/R75) and samples of roots and tops
from the more recent field trials (2001-2004) were analyzed using the
above LC/MS/MS method (Method AL/01/02).

An enforcement analytical method for desmedipham residues in animal
commodities are not needed because tolerances for animal commodities are
not required.

860.1360 Multiresidue Methods

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The FDA multi-residue method testing data have
been forwarded to FDA for evaluation (memo to L. Sawyer from D.
McNeilly, dated 04/14/92).  The FDA PESTDATA database dated 10/99 (PAM
Vol. I, Appendix I) does not report recoveries for desmedipham using any
of the multiresidue methods in PAM Vol. I.

860.1380 Storage Stability

The Desmedipham RED (08/95) noted that data are available supporting the
stability of desmedipham in frozen (-21ºC) sugar beet roots and tops
for up to 8 months.  These data are adequate to support the storage
conditions and intervals from earlier field trials (MRID 42516500/01).
However, in the most recent field trials, samples of roots and tops were
stored frozen for up to 14 months (MRID 45824401) or 13.5 months (MRID
46773001).  Each of these later field trials indicated that data were
available supporting frozen storage intervals of up to 24 months and
cited the following study:

Wrede, A.  2001.  “Stability of Desmedipham and its Metabolite EHPC in
Sugar Beet Root and Leaf During Deep Freeze Storage of 24 Months, Bayer
CropScience Report No. C017679.”

However, these data have not been submitted to the Agency for review.

Conclusion:

	1)  The 24-month storage stability study on sugar beets should be
submitted for review.

860.1400 Water, Fish, and Irrigated Crops

This guideline requirement is not relevant as there are no aquatic uses
for desmedipham.

860.1460 Food Handling

This guideline requirement is not relevant as there are no-food handling
uses for desmedipham.

860.1480 Meat, Milk, Poultry, and Eggs

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Based on the reassess tolerance for sugar beet
tops, the maximum theoretical dietary burdens of desmedipham for beef
and dairy cattle are presented in Table 4.

Table 4.	Calculation of Maximum Dietary Burdens of Livestock to
Desmedipham Residues.

Feed Commodity	% Dry Matter1	% Diet1	Reassessed Tolerance (ppm)	Dietary
Contribution (ppm)2

Beef Cattle

Beet, sugar, tops	23	20	5	4.3

TOTAL BURDEN

20

4.3

Dairy Cattle

Beet, sugar, tops	23	10	5	2.2

TOTAL BURDEN

10

2.2

1 Table 1 (OPPTS Guideline 860.1000).

2 Contribution = ([tolerance / % DM] X % diet) for beef and dairy cattle

The administered dose in the submitted ruminant metabolism study
represented 1.1x the maximum expected dietary burden to beef cattle and
2.3x the maximum expected dietary burden to dairy cattle. Because
Desmedipham residues in milk and all tissues in the metabolism study
were < 0.01 ppm, the Agency considers use of desmedipham on sugar beets
to be a 180.6(a)(3) situation for ruminants (i.e., there is no
expectation of finite residues in ruminant commodities).  Therefore, a
cattle feeding study is not required, and no tolerances for ruminant
commodities need be established.

Sugar beet commodities are not listed as poultry or swine feed items in
Table 1 (OPPTS 860.1000); therefore, no tolerances for desmedipham
residues in poultry or swine commodities are required.

860.1500 Crop Field Trials

D184329, D. Miller, 12/22/92

45824401.der, S. Kinard, 07/08/04

46773001.der, P. Y. Barnes, 12/28/06

The results from sugar beet field trials, which used the adequate
HPLC/UV or LC/MS/MS methods for sample analysis, are discussed below and
summarized in Table 5.  The Agency notes that Bayer is only supporting
the use of EC formulations on sugar beets.

Table 5.	Summary of Residue Data from Sugar Beet Field Trials with
Desmedipham.

Crop matrix	Formulation	Total Applic. Rate  (lb ai/A)	PHI (days)	Residue
Levels (ppm) 1

n	Min.	Max.	HAFT 2	Median	Mean	Std. Dev.

MRID 42516500/01 3

Tops	1.3 lb/gal EC	1.95 (1x)	75	5	<0.05	6.54	6.54	0.12	1.38	2.88

MRID 45824401 4

Tops	1.3 lb/gal EC	1.18-1.23 (0.6x)	75-76	28	<0.05	0.24	0.23	0.025	0.042
0.054

Roots

28	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	0.025	0.025	NA

MRID 46773001

Tops	1/3 lb/gal EC	1.93-2.09 (1x)	71-75	18	<0.05	0.135	0.100	0.025	0.045
0.037

Roots

18	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	0.025	0.025	NA

1            The method LOQ is 0.05 ppm.  For calculation of the median,
mean and standard deviation, ½LOQ (0.025 ppm) was used for samples with
residues <LOQ.

2	HAFT = Highest Average Field Trial.

3	The Agency’s review of this submission did not address residues in
roots.

4             This study was conducted to support the use of multiple
“micro” applications at up to 0.2 lb ai/A/application.

MRID 42516501.   In the 5 field trials referenced in MRID 42516500/01
dated 1992 for growing zones 5, 7 and 10, desmedipham was applied to
sugar beets in side-by-side tests using the 70% WP and 1.3 lb/gal EC
formulations as two broadcast foliar applications at 0.975 lb
ai/A/application, one week apart, for a total of 1.95 lb ai/A (1x rate).
 Single control and treated samples of tops were harvested from each
test at 75 DAT.  Samples of tops were stored frozen for up to 8 months,
and were analyzed for residues of desmedipham using the adequate HPLC/UV
method (Desmedipham Method/R75).  The method LOQ is 0.05 ppm for tops.

Following two applications totaling 1.95 lb ai/A (1x rate), residues of
desmedipham in/on sugar beet tops at 75 DAT were <0.05-6.54 ppm for the
five samples from plots treated with the 1.3 lb/gal EC and 0.07 ppm to
13.86 ppm for the five samples from plots treated with the 70% WP.
Average residues in/on tops were 1.38 ppm for the EC formulation and
2.97 ppm for the WP formulation.

MRID 45824401.   In 14 field trials conducted during 2001 in growing
zones 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, desmedipham (1.3 lb/gal EC) was applied to
sugar beets as six broadcast foliar applications at 0.19-0.21 lb
ai/A/application, at RTIs of 4-6 days, for a total of 1.18-1.23 lb
ai/A/season (0.6x rate).  Applications were generally made beginning at
the 2 to 19 leaf stage and up to complete crop cover (BBCH 12-39).  All
applications were made using ground equipment and included the use of
methylated seed oil as an adjuvant at (1.5%, v/v).  Single control and
duplicate treated samples of tops and roots were harvested at 75-76 DAT.
 At two test sites in MN and CA, single treated and control samples of
roots and tops were also harvested at 45 to 46, 60, 90 and 105 DAT to
examine residue decline.  Samples of roots and tops were stored frozen
(≤0 ºC) for up to 14 months prior to analysis, and samples were
analyzed using an adequate LC/MS/MS method (Bayer Method AL/01/02).  The
method LOQ is 0.05 ppm for both roots and tops, and reported LOD is
0.016 ppm and 0.008 ppm for tops and roots, respectively.

Following six applications totaling ~1.2 lb ai/A (0.6x rate), residues
of desmedipham were <0.05 ppm in/on all 28 samples of sugar beet roots
and <0.05 ppm to 0.24 ppm in/on 28 samples of sugar beet tops harvested
at 75 to 76 DAT.  Only three samples of tops had residues above the LOQ
(0.08, 0.22, and 0.24 ppm).  The HAFT residues were <0.05 ppm for roots
and 0.23 ppm for tops, and average residues were 0.025 ppm (½LOQ) for
roots and 0.042 ppm for tops.  In the two residue decline trials,
residues were <LOQ in/on roots samples at all intervals from both trials
and were also <LOQ in/on tops at all intervals from the MN test.  In the
CA test, residues in/on tops declined from 0.25 ppm at 45 DAT to <LOQ by
90 DAT.

(≤-5ºC) for up to 13.5 months prior to analysis, and samples were
analyzed using an adequate LC/MS/MS method (Bayer Method AL/01/02).  The
method LOQ is 0.05 ppm for both roots and tops, and the LOD is 0.008 ppm
and 0.023 ppm for tops and roots, respectively.

Following application at a 1x rate, residues of desmedipham in/on sugar
beets were <0.05 ppm for the 18 samples of roots and <0.05 ppm to 0.135
ppm for the 18 samples of tops harvested at 71-75 DAT, and only 5 of the
18 tops samples had residues >LOQ.  The HAFT residues were <0.05 ppm for
roots and 0.10 ppm for tops, and average residues were 0.025 ppm for
roots and 0.045 ppm for tops.

Conclusions.  Pending submission of the requested storage stability
data, the available sugar beet field trial studies are adequate.  The
earlier field trial data on tops (MRID 42516500/01) along with the more
recent field trial data on tops and roots (MRID 46773001) are sufficient
to support the current maximum use rate of desmedipham (EC) on sugar
beets, which allows for two applications totaling 1.95 lb ai/A.
Although residue data for roots are available from only 9 of the
required 12 trials, the available root data are adequate as residues
in/on all 18 samples were below LOQ.  For the EC formulation, which is
the only type being supported, residues were <0.05 ppm to 6.54 ppm in/on
27 samples of sugar beet tops.  Adequate data are also available to
support the labeled use of up to six low rate applications at 0.2 lb
ai/A with the inclusion of methylated seed oil (1.5%, v/v) as an
adjuvant.

860.1520 Processed Food and Feed

DP Barcode D216436, Desmedipham RED, D. Miller, 08/18/95

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 An adequate sugar beet processing study is
available.  Residues of desmedipham were nondetectable (<0.05 ppm) in
sugar beet processed commodities (processed roots, cossettes, dried
pulp, refined sugar, and molasses) generated from sugar beet roots
bearing nondetectable residues following treatment at 2x the maximum
seasonal rate (the highest tolerated rate).  As residues were <LOQ in
the RAC and processed fractions following applications at the highest
tolerated rate, separate tolerances for sugar cane molasses, dried pulp,
and sugar are not required.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 860.1650 Submittal of Analytical Reference
Standards

As of 07/2006, an analytical reference standard for desmedipham is
available at the EPA National Pesticide Standards Repository.

860.1850 Confined Accumulation in Rotational Crops

DP Barcode D216436, Desmedipham RED, D. Miller, 08/18/95

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The nature of the residues in rotational crops is
adequately understood.  The available confined rotational crop study is
adequate, provided the dates of sample extraction and analysis for each
crop matrix as well as supporting storage stability data reflecting the
storage intervals and conditions of samples from the study are
submitted.  The existing study used an application rate of 2.2 lb ai/A,
which is ~1x the maximum use rate for sugar beets.

Limited and/or extensive field rotational crop studies are not required
because residues of the regulated parent were predominately <0.01 ppm
in/on rotational crop commodities from the 30-day plant-back interval.
Therefore, rotational crop restrictions are not necessary and no
plant-back intervals need be prescribed.

860.1550 Tolerances

The Agency has determined that the regulated residue for desmedipham in
plant and animal commodities is desmedipham per se. Permanent tolerances
are established for residues of desmedipham at 0.2 ppm in/on sugar beet
roots and tops [40 CFR §180.353(a)].    SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The
existing tolerances for sugar beet roots and tops are listed in Table 6,
along with the Agency’s recommended reassessed tolerance levels.

As Bayer is only supporting the use of EC formulations of desmedipham,
only residue data from trials using EC formulations will be used for
tolerance reassessment.  In the field trials conducted at a 1x rate,
residues in/on 27 samples of tops were <0.05ppm - 6.35 ppm, with 16
samples having residues <0.05 ppm, 10 samples having residues of 0.06
ppm to 2.19 ppm, and one sample having residues at 6.35 ppm.  Based on
the maximum residue value, the tolerance for tops should be reassessed
to 5 ppm.  The tolerance for roots can be reduced 0.1 ppm as residues
were <LOQ (<0.05 ppm) in/on all 18 samples of sugar beet roots.

There are no established or proposed Codex, Canadian or Mexican MRLs for
desmedipham (see International Residue Limit Status Sheet, attached).
Therefore, no compatibility questions exist with respect to the
recommended U.S. tolerances.

Table 6. 	Tolerance Reassessment Summary for Desmedipham.

Commodity	Existing Tolerance (ppm)	Recommended Tolerance (ppm)	Comments

Beet, sugar, roots	0.2	0.1	Following application of the EC formulation
at a 1x rate, residues were <0.05 ppm in/on 18 samples of roots and
<0.05-6.35 ppm in/on 27 samples of tops harvested around the labeled
75-day PHI.

Beet, sugar, tops	0.2	5.0

RDI:  P. Yvonne Barnes (11/07/2006), Donald Wilbur (11/20/2006).

References

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 DP Barcode:	D184329

Subject:	Desmedipham 6(a)(2) Submission form Nor-Am Chemical Company
dated October 15, 1992.  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

From:		D. Miller

To:		W. Allan

Dated:		12/22/92

MRID(s):	42516500 and 42516501

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 DP Barcode:	D213531

Subject:	Desmedipham.  Outcome of 3/27/95 Meeting of HED Metabolism
Committee.  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

From:		D. Miller

To:		HED Metabolism Committee

Dated:		04/10/95

MRID(s):	None

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 DP Barcode:	D216436

Subject:䐉獥敭楤桰浡ㄨ㐰〸⤱倠潲畤瑣愠摮删獥摩敵
䌠敨業瑳祲䌠慨瑰牥⁳潦⁲桴敒敲楧瑳慲楴湯䔠楬楧
楢楬祴䐠捥獩潩刨䑅⸩–䕓⁑䡃偁䕔⁒桜尠⁲ᔱ䘍潲
㩭उ⹄䴠汩敬൲潔ऺ刉敇止湥愠摮䄠楁敫獮䐍瑡摥
ऺ〉⼸㠱㤯വ前䑉猨㨩三湯൥഍–䕓⁑䡃偁䕔⁒桜尠⁲
ᔱ瑁慴档敭瑮㩳†

6

7

6

7

8

9

:

;

<

×

Ø

 7

8

:

;

<

‰

Æ

Ç

É

Ë

Ð

A

T

Z

ƒ

œ

Í

Î

Õ

Ö

×

Ø

Ù

í

î

ú

ý

㄀Ĥ摧౰§	̤̀␱愁̤摧Ҵ	̤̀␱愁̤摧㸔

␱愁̤摧㸔

h\

h\

h\

㐀ۖĀ̊e攃昀Ĵ̀

$

#

$

Æ

̤̀萏ﾦ␱币Ꚅ懿̤摧哯ü

	̤̀␱愁̤摧n

ഀ׆Ā褐ༀຄ㄁Ĥ葞Ď摧⨯@

态ú␱愁̤摧⨯@

h =

h =

 h =

 h =

 h =

  h =

 h =

  h =

 h =

 h =

  h =

$	¶

h\

h\

h\

h‚

 h

h‚

$

h‚

International Residue Limit Status sheet

Template Version September 2005

INTERNATIONAL RESIDUE LIMIT STATUS

Chemical Name:  ethyl [3-[[(phenylamino)carbonyl] oxy]phenyl]carbamate
Common Name:  Desmedipham

	X Proposed tolerance

 Reevaluated tolerance

 Other	Date:  08/25/2006

Codex Status (Maximum Residue Limits)	Recommended U. S. Tolerances

X No Codex proposal step 6 or above

 No Codex proposal step 6 or above for the crops requested	Petition
Number:  NA

DP Barcodes:   D327440

Residue definition (step 8/CXL):  	Reviewer/Branch: P. Yvonne Barnes,
RRB2

	Residue definition:  Desmedipham

Crop (s)	MRL (mg/kg)	Crop(s) 	Tolerance (ppm)

Beet, sugar, roots	0.1

Beet, sugar, tops	5.0

	Limits for Canada	Limits for Mexico

X No Limits

؀ No Limits for the crops requested	X  No Limits

  No Limits for the crops requested

Residue definition:	Residue definition:

Crop(s)	MRL (mg/kg)	Crop(s)	MRL (mg/kg)

Rev. 1998

Desmedipham	Summary of Analytical Chemistry and Residue Data	Barcode:
D327740

 PAGE   1  of   NUMPAGES  15


[Federal Register: July 17, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 138)]
[Notices]
[Page 41063-41064]
[DOCID:fr17jy08-56]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. DI08-11-000]

HPML LLC; Notice of Declaration of Intention and Soliciting
Comments, Protests, and/or Motions To Intervene

July 10, 2008.
    Take notice that the following application has been filed with the
Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Declaration of Intention.
    b. Docket No.: DI08-11-000.
    c. Date Filed: June 23, 2008.
    d. Applicant: HPML LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Delia Creek Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The proposed Delia Creek Hydroelectric Project will be
located on Delia Creek, near the towns of Palmer and Wasilla,
Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Alaska, affecting T. 20 N, R. 1 E, sec. 36,
Seward Meridian.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act, 16
U.S.C. 817(b).
    h. Applicant Contact: Jill Reese, P.O. Box 91187, Anchorage, AK
99509; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Henry Ecton,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and/or motions: August
11, 2008.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests, and/or
interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of
paper. Any questions, please contact the Secretary's Office. See, 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site at http://www.ferc.gov under the ``e-Filing'' link.
    Please include the docket number (DI08-11-000) on any comments,
protests, and/or motions filed.
    k. Description of Project: The proposed Delia Creek Hydropower
Project will include: (1) A proposed 3-foot-high, 12-foot-wide
diversion structure; (2) a buried 10-inch-deep desander box, directing
water into a 2600-foot-long HDPE penstock; (3) a 15-foot-long by 15-
foot-wide powerhouse containing a 50-kW turbine and generator; (4) a
tailrace emptying into the Little Susitna River; and (5) appurtenant
facilities. The proposed project will not be connected to an interstate
grid, and will not occupy any tribal or federal lands.
    When a Declaration of Intention is filed with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, the Federal Power Act requires the Commission to
investigate and determine if the interests of interstate or foreign
commerce would be affected by the project. The Commission also
determines whether or not the project: (1) Would be located on a
navigable waterway; (2) would occupy or affect public lands or
reservations of the United States; (3) would utilize surplus water or
water power from a government dam; or (4) if applicable, has involved
or would involve any construction subsequent to 1935 that may have
increased or would increase the project's head or generating capacity,
or have otherwise significantly modified the project's pre-1935 design
or operation.
    l. Locations of the Application: Copies of this filing are on file
with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This
filing may be viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link, select ``Docket'' and follow the
instructions. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must

be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular
application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTESTS'', AND/
OR ``MOTIONS TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Docket Number of
the particular application to which the filing refers. A copy of any
motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the
Applicant specified in the particular application.
    p. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-16301 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 91 (Tuesday, May 12, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27155-27157]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11405]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL13-88-000]

Northern Indiana Public Service Company v. Midcontinent
Independent System Operator, Inc. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice
of Technical Conference

    On September 11, 2013, Northern Indiana Public Service Company
(NIPSCO) filed a complaint against Midcontinent Independent System
Operator, Inc. (MISO) and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM). NIPSCO
requested that the Commission order MISO and PJM to reform the
interregional transmission planning process of the Joint Operating
Agreement between MISO and PJM (MISO-PJM JOA).\1\ On December 18, 2014,
the Commission issued an order directing Commission staff to convene a
technical conference to explore issues raised in the NIPSCO Complaint
related to the MISO-PJM JOA and the MISO-PJM seam.\2\ Take notice that
such conference will be held on June 15, 2015, at the Commission's
headquarters at 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, between
9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) in the Commission Meeting Room.
The technical conference will be led by Commission staff and may be
attended by one or more Commissioners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ NIPSCO Complaint, Docket No. EL13-88-000 (filed Sept. 11,
2013).
    \2\ Northern Indiana Public Service Co. v. Midcontinent Indep.
Sys. Operator, Inc. and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 149 FERC ]
61,248, at P 35 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The technical conference will not be transcribed. However, there
will be a free webcast of the conference. The webcast will allow
persons to listen to the technical conference, but not participate.
Anyone with Internet access who wants to listen to the conference can
do so by navigating to the Calendar of Events at www.ferc.gov and
locating the technical conference in the Calendar. The technical
conference will contain a link to its webcast. The Capitol Connection
provides technical support for the webcast and offers the option of
listening to the meeting via phone-bridge for a fee. If you have any
questions, visit www.CapitolConnection.org or call<PHONE_NUMBER>.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The webcast will continue to be available on the Calendar of
Events on the Commission's Web site www.ferc.gov for three months
after the conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Advance registration is required for all attendees. Attendees may
register in advance at the following Web page: https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/06-15-15-form.asp. Attendees should allow time
to pass

through building security procedures before the 9:00 a.m. (Eastern
Time) start time of the technical conference. In addition, information
on this event will be posted on the Calendar of Events on the
Commission's Web site, www.ferc.gov, prior to the event.
    Those wishing to be panelists in the program for this event should
nominate themselves through the on-line registration form no later than
close of business May 18, 2015 at the following Web page, https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/06-15-15-speaker-form.asp. At this
Web page, please identify the name(s) of the person(s) wishing to be a
panelist and which issue(s) below you wish to discuss. Panelists will
be selected to ensure relevant topics and to accommodate time
constraints. Other attendees may ask questions or make comments as time
permits.
    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free 1-866-208-
3372 (voice) or 202-502 -8659 (TTY); or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    The technical conference will consist of five sessions and focus on
the issues raised by NIPSCO in the Complaint, as detailed below. The
times given below are approximate and may change, as needed. As time
permits, at the end of each session staff will open the floor for
questions and comments from attendees.

Conference Introduction: Commission Staff (9:00 a.m.-9:15 a.m.)
Session 1: Transmission Planning Cycles (9:15 a.m.-10:15 a.m.)

    Panelists should be prepared to discuss the issue of whether the
Commission should require the MISO-PJM cross-border transmission
planning process to run concurrently with the MISO and PJM regional
transmission planning cycles, rather than after those regional
transmission planning cycles, and to answer questions including, but
not limited to, the following: How could MISO and PJM modify their
regional transmission planning cycles to better align with the MISO-PJM
cross-border transmission planning process? What impact would this have
on other regional and interregional transmission planning cycles (i.e.,
neighboring regions)? Should MISO and PJM use the same planning
deadlines to achieve regional benefits from coordination of the cross-
border transmission planning process? Discussion of these issues should
focus on the MISO-PJM seam in general, and NIPSCO's location on the
seam in particular.

Session 2: Modeling and Criteria (10:15 a.m.-11:15 a.m.)

    Panelists should be prepared to describe the existing joint
interregional transmission planning model used to evaluate cross-border
transmission projects and to answer questions including, but not
limited to, the following: Are changes needed to this existing model or
the assumptions used to enable coordinated study of proposed cross-
border transmission projects? Should the Commission require MISO and
PJM to use a single common set of criteria to evaluate cross-border
transmission projects as proposed by NIPSCO in the Complaint? In
addition to the benefit metric, what other metrics do PJM and MISO
consider in the evaluation of cross-border transmission projects?
Should the Commission require that there be consistency between PJM's
and MISO's regional transmission planning analyses such that both
entities are consistent in their application of reliability criteria
and modeling assumptions as proposed by NIPSCO in the Complaint?
Discussion of these issues should focus on the MISO-PJM seam in
general, and NIPSCO's location on the seam in particular.

Lunch Break: (11:15 a.m.-12:15 p.m.)
Session 3: Market-to-Market Payments (12:15 p.m.-1:30 p.m.)

    Panelists should be prepared to answer questions including, but not
limited to, the following: Should the Commission require MISO and PJM
to amend the criteria to evaluate cross-border market efficiency
transmission projects to address all known benefits, including
avoidance of future market-to-market payments made to reallocate short-
term transmission capacity in the real-time operation of the system as
proposed by NIPSCO in the Complaint? Have MISO, PJM, and the market
monitors identified trends in market-to-market payments that may be
relevant to NIPSCO's position along the PJM-MISO seam? Is there a
relationship between the cross-border transmission planning process
(and evaluation of potential interregional transmission projects) and
persistent market-to-market payments being made between the RTOs? Are
persistent market-to-market payments an indicator of the need for new
transmission? Please provide examples of transmission projects that
have been considered under the existing cross-border transmission
planning process for the purpose of mitigating congestion and/or
constraints that lead to persistent market-to-market payments but that
have not been developed, and the reasons the transmission project was
not developed.

Break: (1:30 p.m.-1:45 p.m.)
Session 4: Lower Voltage Transmission Projects (1:45 p.m.-2:45 p.m.)

    Panelists should be prepared to discuss the issue of whether the
Commission should require MISO and PJM to have a process for joint
transmission planning and cost allocation of lower voltage and lower
cost cross-border upgrades, as proposed by NIPSCO in the Complaint, and
to answer questions including, but not limited to, the following: How
would a lower voltage criteria align with current regional cost
allocation methods? Are lower voltage transmission projects expected to
provide region-wide or local benefits? Discussion of these issues
should focus on the MISO-PJM seam in general, and NIPSCO's location on
the seam in particular.

Session 5: Generator Interconnections and Retirements (2:45 p.m.-3:45
p.m.)

    Panelists should be prepared to discuss the issue of whether the
Commission should require MISO and PJM to improve the processes within
the MISO-PJM JOA with respect to new generator interconnections and
generation retirements, as proposed by NIPSCO in the Complaint, and to
answer questions including, but not limited to, the following: What
impact does the interconnection or retirement of external generation
have on a neighboring region? How do MISO and PJM model new generation,
or the retirement of existing generation, on a neighboring system? At
what stage of the interconnection process do MISO and PJM share
information or coordinate studies? How does the current process of
studying external generation impact congestion? How do MISO and PJM
share information about generator interconnections and retirements?
What are the differences in timing between the two RTOs for sharing
information about generator interconnections and retirements?
Discussion of these issues should focus on the MISO-PJM seam in
general, and NIPSCO's location on the seam in particular.

Conference Conclusion: Next Steps (3:45 p.m.--4:00 p.m.)

    Following the technical conference, the Commission will consider
post-technical conference comments submitted on or before July 15,
2015. Reply comments are due on or before August 5, 2015. The written
comments will be included in the formal record of

the proceeding, which, together with the record developed to date, will
form the basis for further Commission action.
    For more information about this technical conference, please
contact Lina Naik,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>regarding legal
issues; or Jason Strong,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>and Ben
Foster,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>regarding technical issues;
or Sarah McKinley,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>regarding
logistical issues.

    Dated: May 5, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-11405 Filed 5-11-15; 8:45 a.m.]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 169 (Tuesday, September 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52846-52847]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21611]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Docket Number: RITA-2008-0002]

Agency Information Collection Activity; Notice of Request for
Approval To Collect New Information: Confidential Close Call Reporting
for Transit Rail System

AGENCY: Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Research Technology (OST-R), U.S. Department of
Transportation.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the requirements of section 3506(c)(2)(A)
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the
intention of the Bureau of Transportation Statistics to request the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the following
information collection: Confidential Close Call Reporting for Transit
Rail System. This data collection effort supports a multi-year program
focused on improving transit rail safety by collecting and analyzing
data and information on close calls and other unsafe occurrences in the
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) rail system. The
program is co-sponsored by WMATA's Office of the Deputy General Manager
Operations (DGMO) and the President/Business Agent of the Amalgamated
Transit Union (ATU) Local 689. It is designed to identify safety issues
and propose corrective actions based on voluntary reports of close
calls submitted confidentially to the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics (BTS), U.S. Department of Transportation. This information
collection is necessary to aid WMATA/ATU in systematically collecting
and analyzing data to identify root causes of potentially unsafe
events.

DATES: Comments must be received by November 2, 2015.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that your comments are not entered more than once
into the docket, submit comments by only one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically. Docket Number: RITA-2008-2002.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility (DMF), U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m. EST, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Identify all transmission with ``Docket Number RITA-2008-0002'' at
the beginning of each page of the document.
    Instructions: All comments must include the agency name and docket
number for this notice. Paper comments should be submitted in
duplicate. The DMF is open for examination and copying, at the above
address from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. EST, Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. If you wish to receive confirmation of receipt of
your written comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped
postcard with the following statement: ``Comments on Docket RITA-2008-
0002.'' The Docket Clerk will date stamp the postcard prior to
returning it to you via the U.S. mail. Please note that all comments
received, including any personal information, will be posted and will
be available to Internet users, without change, at www.regulations.gov.

You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; pages
19477-78) or you may review the Privacy Act Statement at
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Demetra V. Collia, Bureau of
Transportation Statistics, Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Research and Technology (OST-R), U.S. Department of Transportation,
Office of Statistical and Economic Analysis (OSEA), RTS-31, E36-302,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001; Phone No. (202)
366-1610; Fax No.<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Office
hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., EST, Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
    Data Confidentiality Provisions: The confidentiality of Close Calls
data is protected under the BTS confidentiality statute (49 U.S.C. 111
(k)) and the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical
Efficiency Act (CIPSEA) of 2002 (Public Law 107-347, Title V). In
accordance with these confidentiality statutes, only statistical and
non-identifying data will be made publicly available through reports.
Further, BTS will not release to FRA or any other public or private
entity any information that might reveal the identity of individuals or
organizations mentioned in close call reports.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. The Data Collection

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35; as
amended) and 5 CFR part 1320 require each Federal agency to obtain OMB
approval to continue an information collection activity. BTS is seeking
OMB approval for the following BTS information collection activity:
    Title: Confidential Close Call Reporting System.
    OMB Control Number: 2139-0010.
    Type of Review: Approval to continue to collect data. Confidential
Close Call Reporting for WMATA.
    Respondents: WMATA Rail Employees.
    Number of Respondents: 100 (per annum).
    Estimated Time per Response: 60 minutes.
    Frequency: Intermittent for approximately five (5) years. (Reports
are submitted when there is a qualifying event, i.e. a close call
occurs within WMATAs rail system. The frequency of such an event is
estimated to be two per day.)
    Total Annual Burden: 100 hours.
    Abstract: Collecting transportation safety data, including data on
precursors to adverse events, is an important component of BTS's
responsibility to the transportation community and is authorized in
BTS' authorizing statute (49 U.S.C. 6302). BTS and WMATA/the
Amalgamated Transit Union, (ATU) share a common interest in promoting
transit rail safety based on accurate information. To that end, WMATAs
Office of the Deputy General Manager Operations (DGMO) and ATU's
President/Business Agent are sponsoring the Confidential Close Call
reporting for Transit Safety Rail System (C3RTSRS) project to
investigate the effectiveness of the system in improving transit rail
safety. A close call is a situation or circumstance that had the
potential for safety consequences, but did not result in an adverse
safety event. Knowledge about a close call presents an opportunity to
address unsafe work conditions and improve safety in the workplace. It
is estimated that the time for an individual respondent to complete a
near miss report and if needed, participate in a brief confidential
interview will be no more than 60 minutes for an estimated 100
respondents and maximum total burden of hours (100 reports * 60
minutes/60 = 100 hours). Reports may be voluntarily submitted to BTS
when there is a qualifying event, i.e., when a close call occurs within
WMATA's rail system.

II. Background

    Collecting data on the nation's transportation system is an
important component of BTS' mission and responsibility to the
transportation community as stated in its authorizing statute (49
U.S.C. Sec. 6302). BTS and WMATA/ATU share a common interest in
promoting rail transit safety through the use of timely, accurate, and
relevant data. WMATA/ATU is sponsoring the Confidential Close Call
Reporting for Transit Rail System (C\3\RTRS) project to improve transit
rail safety by studying the effectiveness of its own rail system
through data and information collected from reported close calls.
    A close call is a situation or circumstance that had the potential
for safety consequences, but did not result in an adverse safety event.
Knowledge about a close call presents an opportunity to address unsafe
work conditions, prevent accidents, and improve safety in the
workplace.
    BTS will collect close call reports submitted by WMATA rail
employees, conduct employee interviews, as needed, develop an
analytical database containing the reported data and other pertinent
information, provide statistical analysis to WMATA, and protect the
confidentiality of these data through its own statute (49 U.S.C. Sec.
6302) and CIPSEA. Accordingly, only statistical and non-sensitive
information will be made available through publications and reports.
    Voluntary reporting of close calls to a confidential system can
provide a tool to identify and correct weaknesses in WMATA's transit
rail system and help prevent accidents. The C\3\RTRS project will
foster a voluntary, cooperative, non-punitive environment to
communicate safety concerns. Through the analysis of close calls the
WMATA/ATU will receive information about factors that may contribute to
unsafe events and use that information to develop new training programs
and identify root causes of potentially adverse events. The database
will also potentially provide researchers with valuable information
regarding precursors to safety risks and contribute to research and
development of intervention programs aimed at preventing accidents and
fatalities.
    Employees involved in reporting a close call incident will be asked
to fill out a report and participate in a brief, confidential
interview. Employees will have the option to mail or submit the report
electronically to BTS. Participants will be asked to provide
information such as: (1) Name and contact information; (2) time and
location of the event; (3) a short description of the event; (4)
contributing factors to the close call; and (5) any other information
that might be useful in determining a root cause of such event.

III. Request for Comments

    BTS requests comments on any aspects of these information
collections, including: (1) The accuracy of the estimated burden of 100
hours detailed in Section I; (2) ways to enhance the quality,
usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (3) ways to
minimize the collection burden without reducing the quality of the
information collected, including additional use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 25, 2015.
Patricia Hu,
Director, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Research and Technology.
[FR Doc. 2015-21611 Filed 8-31-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-HY-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 174 (Thursday, September 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55729-55730]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23013]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Notice of the Extension of the Comment Period for the Draft
Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement for the
California High-Speed Rail Project Merced to Fresno Section

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: FRA is issuing this notice to advise the public that the
comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR)/
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that has been prepared for the
California High-Speed Train (HST) Project Merced to Fresno Section
(Project) has been extended and shall now end on October 13, 2011. This
decision was made by the Authority and FRA in response to requests for
extension of the comment period. FRA is the lead federal agency and the
California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) is the lead state
agency for the environmental review process.
    The Authority proposes to construct and operate a reliable high-
speed electric-powered passenger train system along an approximately
65-mile corridor, from Merced, CA, to Fresno, CA that links those
cities by delivering predictable and consistent travel times. The
Project includes high-speed track alignments, stations in downtown
Merced and Fresno. A heavy maintenance facility for assembly, testing,
and commissioning of trains, train inspection and service, and train
overhaul may be constructed in the Merced to Fresno Section.
    The Draft EIR/EIS presents the Project's purpose and need,
identifies all reasonable alternatives including track alignments,
stations, and heavy maintenance facilities as well as the no action
alternative, describes the affected environment, analyzes the potential
environmental impacts of all the reasonable alternatives and the no
action alternative, and identifies appropriate mitigation measures to
minimize the potential environmental impacts.

DATES: Written comments on the Draft EIR/EIS for the Project should be
provided to the Authority on or before October 13, 2011. Public
hearings are scheduled on September 14, 2011, September 15, 2011, and
September 20, 2011 in Merced, CA, Madera, CA, and Fresno, CA
respectively at the times and dates listed in the Addresses Section
below.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the Draft EIR/EIS should be sent to the
California High-Speed Rail Authority, Merced to Fresno EIR/EIS Comment,
770 L Street, Suite 800, Sacramento, CA 95814, through the Authority's
Web site at http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov, or via e-mail with the
subject line ``Draft EIR/EIS'' to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments
may also be provided orally or in writing at the public hearings
scheduled at the following locations:
     Merced, CA, Wednesday, September 14, 2011, 3 to 8 p.m.,
Merced Community Senior Center, 755 West 15th Street, Merced, CA 95340;
     Madera, CA, Thursday, September 15, 2011, 3 to 8 p.m.,
Madera City Council Chambers, 205 W. 4th Street, Madera, CA 93637; and
     Fresno, CA, Tuesday, September 20, 2011, 3 to 8 p.m.,
Fresno Convention Center, 848 M Street, Fresno, CA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Valenstein, Chief,
Environment and Systems Planning Division, Office of Railroad Policy
and Development, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., MS-20, Washington, DC
20590 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>), or Mr. Dan Leavitt, Deputy Director
for Environmental Review and Planning, California High-Speed Rail
Authority, 770 L Street, Ste. 800, Sacramento, CA 95814 (telephone:
916-324-1541).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Once completed, the California HST system
will provide intercity, high-speed passenger rail service on more than
800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major
population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the
Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San
Diego. It will use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, high-speed,
steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety,
signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of
operating up to 220 miles per hour (mph) over a fully grade-separated,
dedicated double track alignment.
    The FRA and Authority certified a Statewide Program EIR/EIS (Tier
1) for the California HST system in November 2005 as the first phase of
a tiered environmental review process for the California HST system. In
2008, the FRA and Authority certified another program EIR/EIS for the
Bay Area to Central Valley portion of the HST system. The Merced to
Fresno Section Draft EIR/EIS (Tier 2) analyzes the environmental

impacts and benefits of implementing the high-speed train in the more
geographically limited area between Merced and Fresno, and is based on
more detailed project planning and engineering. This Draft EIR/EIS
analysis builds on the earlier decisions and program EIR/EISs, and
provides more site-specific and detailed analysis.
    The Authority plans to complete the California HST System in two
phases. Phase 1 will connect San Francisco to Los Angeles/Anaheim via
the Pacheco Pass and the Central Valley with a mandated express travel
time of 2 hours and 40 minutes or less. Phase 2 will connect the
Central Valley to the state's capital, Sacramento, and will extend the
system from Los Angeles to San Diego. This Project is for one section
in Phase 1 and is receiving funding from FRA for design and
environmental review as well as for construction of an initial Section
in the Central Valley.
    The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act),
enacted February 17, 2009, contained $8 billion to fund high-speed and
intercity passenger rail (HSIPR) projects. In response to the Recovery
Act funding, FRA developed and began implementation of the HSIPR
Program to fund projects to improve existing intercity passenger rail
service and to develop new high speed intercity passenger rail
corridors. FRA's HSIPR Program also received an additional $2.1 billion
from the Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010. The California High-Speed Rail
Authority applied for and was selected to receive over $3.5 billion in
HSIPR funds from FRA to complete preliminary engineering and NEPA
reviews, and associated documentation for seven sections comprising the
Phase 1 California HST System and to construct an initial Central
Valley Section from Madera County to Bakersfield (Kern County),
California. Completion of the environmental review process marked by
issuance of a Record of Decision (ROD) by FRA is a prerequisite for any
construction related federal funding or approvals from FRA.
    The approximately 65-mile-long Merced to Fresno Section is an
essential part of the statewide HST System. The Merced to Fresno
Section is the location of the connection between the Bay Area and
Sacramento branches of the HST System; it will provide Merced and
Fresno access to a new transportation mode and will contribute to
increased mobility throughout California. This Section will connect the
central San Joaquin Valley region to the remainder of the HST System
via Merced County, Madera County, and the northern part of the city of
Fresno.
    This Draft EIR/EIS has been prepared by the FRA and the Authority
consistent with the provisions of Section 102(2)(c) of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the
Counsel of Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA
(40 CFR parts 1500 et seq.), FRA's Procedures for Considering
Environmental Impacts (64 FR 28545 (May 26, 1999)), and in conformity
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public
Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), and the CEQA Guidelines
(California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.).
    The Draft EIR/EIS is available online at FRA's Web site: http://www.fra.dot.gov and the Authority's Web site: http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov. The Draft EIR/EIS is also available for
viewing at the following locations near the planned rail system:
     Fresno County Public Library, Central Branch, 2420
Mariposa Street, Fresno, CA 93721;
     Madera County Library, 121 North G Street, Madera, CA
93637;
     Chowchilla Branch Library (Madera County Library), 300
Kings Avenue, Chowchilla, CA 93610;
     Merced Community Senior Center, 755 West 15th Street,
Merced, CA 95340;
     Merced County Library, 2100 O Street, Merced, CA 95340;
     Galilee Missionary Baptist Church, 22941 Fairmead
Boulevard, Chowchilla, CA 93610;
     Le Grand Branch Library, 12949 Le Grand Road, Le Grand, CA
95333;
     Lao Family Community, 855 W. 15th Street, Merced, CA
95333;
     Madera Ranchos Branch Library, 37167 Avenue 12, Suite 4C,
Madera, CA 95636;
     Merced County Los Banos Branch Library, 1312 South Seventh
Street, Los Banos, CA 93635; and
     Atwater Branch Library, 1600 Third Street, Atwater, CA
95301.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 31, 2011.
Paul Nissenbaum,
Director, Office of Passenger and Freight Programs.
[FR Doc. 2011-23013 Filed 9-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 138 (Tuesday, July 19, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46997-46998]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16988]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2016-79]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Continuum
Dynamics Inc.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's
awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process.
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 and must be received on or before August 8, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-7147
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations 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.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations 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: Dan Ngo,<PHONE_NUMBER>, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591. This notice is published
pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 13, 2016.
Dale Bouffiou,
Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2015-7147.
    Petitioner: Continuum Dynamics Inc.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: 21, and Sec. Sec.  45.23, 45.29,
61.23, 61.3, 61.113(a)(b), 61.133(a), 91.7(a), 91.9, 91.109 (a),
91.119, 91.121, 91.151(a), 91.203, and 91.401-91.417.
    Description of Relief Sought: The petitioner is requesting relief
in order to offer an agricultural spraying demonstration with the T-Rex
600 RC helicopter.

[FR Doc. 2016-16988 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 21 (Thursday, January 31, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6733-6736]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02019]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2011-0328; FRL-9774-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Minnesota; Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving Minnesota's August 29, 2011, request to
revise its sulfur dioxide (SO2) State Implementation Plan
(SIP) for Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend, LLC (FHR Pine Bend), in
Dakota County. The facility is shutting down an incinerator, rerouting
process gases, planning for a new boiler, and making other emission
limit reductions. This revision will result in a decrease in
SO2 emissions.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective April 1, 2013, unless
EPA receives adverse comments by March 4, 2013. If adverse comments are
received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule
in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not
take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2011-0328, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2011-0328. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
We recommend that you telephone Mary Portanova, Environmental Engineer,
at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Portanova, Environmental
Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What is the background for this action?
II. Analysis
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for this action?

    On August 29, 2011, Minnesota submitted a request to EPA to revise
its SO2 SIP for the FHR Pine Bend oil refinery in Rosemount,
Dakota County. FHR Pine Bend is making modifications to its facility to
improve energy efficiency and address plant safety. The facility will
remove its Merox process incinerator, reroute process gases to an
existing furnace, take additional restrictions on steam-air decoking
activities for certain boilers, revise the SO2 emission
limits for its fluid catalytic cracking unit, and add a boiler.
    FHR Pine Bend is subject to an Administrative Order, which contains
SO2 emission limits and requirements which are intended to
ensure the protection of ambient air quality. The provisions of the
Administrative Order have been approved by EPA into the SO2
SIP for FHR Pine Bend (72 FR 39568, July 19, 2007). Minnesota amended
the Administrative Order for FHR Pine Bend to provide for the
facility's planned modifications, and submitted it to EPA on August 29,
2011, as a SIP revision request. The effective date of the amended
Administrative Order was also August 29, 2011. In addition, Minnesota
has issued FHR Pine Bend an amended permit (03700011-008, August 16,
2011). This permit contains SO2 emission limits and related
requirements for FHR Pine Bend.
    After a routine plant safety review, FHR Pine Bend determined that
there was a potential flameout risk with its Merox unit incinerator.
The company decided to shut down the incinerator and reroute the gas
streams it had burned to be either recycled or burned in an existing
process heater (31H-2), depending on the mercaptan content of the
gases. The Merox incinerator had previously handled gases from a sulfur
recovery unit which is no longer in operation. Treating the smaller gas
stream that it currently receives had caused the large Merox
incinerator to operate less efficiently. The process heater (31H-2)
will be able to destroy the Merox off-gases using less additional fuel,
resulting in lower emissions of SO2, nitrogen oxides, carbon
monoxide, and greenhouse gases. The SIP revision request includes
revised SO2 emission limits for the process heater (31H-2),
in response to the heater's new input gas streams. The continuous
emission

monitor (CEM) currently on the Merox incinerator will be moved to the
process heater (31H-2), to measure its SO2 emissions. The
SIP retains the ability for FHR Pine Bend to use the Merox incinerator
temporarily, if it is needed while the gas streams are being rerouted,
but the emission limit applicable to the Merox incinerator for this
potential operation is approximately 700 tons per year (tpy) lower than
its current emission limit. The Merox incinerator is to be permanently
shut down after the gas stream rerouting is complete.
    Other updates which are not related to the Merox incinerator
shutdown are also included in the August 29, 2011 SIP revision request.
First, FHR Pine Bend intends to apply for a permit to install a new
boiler. Therefore, SO2 emissions corresponding to a new
boiler were included in the modeling analysis performed for this SIP
revision request, based on the emissions and stack measurements of the
plant's existing Boiler 9. To ensure that the company's SIP will
continue to protect air quality after the addition of the new boiler,
the Administrative Order prohibits the company from operating the new
boiler with stack and emission parameters different from those used in
the dispersion modeling supporting the August 29, 2011 SIP revision
request. Second, the SIP revision request includes an emission limit
reduction of approximately 2700 tpy at the fluid catalytic cracking
unit. The revised emission limit was chosen after a review of recent
continuous emission monitoring data. Third, FHR Pine Bend is taking
additional limits on its steam-air decoking activities for four
heaters. These limits restrict the heaters from being decoked
simultaneously. The decoking process uses steam, air, heat, and water
to periodically remove coke buildup from process heater tubing. The
decoking residues are directed into water-filled quench pits. The
modeled emission rates from the decoking operations have been updated
after engineering analyses at the plant. Fourth, the SIP revision
request accounts for changes in the stack exit temperature of the oil
separation and waste treatment plant's thermal oxidizer stack, which
are expected after a convection stack/heat exchanger replacement is
completed. The replacement will increase energy efficiency at the
thermal oxidizer. Finally, additional revisions to the SIP address the
facility's name change from Flint Hills Resources, LP, to Flint Hills
Resources Pine Bend, LLC, and adjustments to numbering within the rule.
Overall, the August 29, 2011 SIP revision provides for a reduction in
SO2 emissions of over 3100 tpy.

II. Analysis

    Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act states that the Administrator
shall not approve a SIP revision if it would interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning attainment of the national ambient
air quality standards (NAAQS) and reasonable further progress. 42
U.S.C. 7410(l). The August 29, 2011 SIP revision for FHR Pine Bend
represents an overall emissions decrease of over 3100 tpy of
SO2 emissions. The revision also provides for reductions in
nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and greenhouse gases from the
shutdown of the Merox incinerator and the associated decrease in fuel
usage.
    The new operating scenario and new limits for FHR Pine Bend were
evaluated and compared to the SO2 NAAQS and to the previous
SIP scenario using the EPA regulatory dispersion model AERMOD (version
09292), with meteorological data from 2000-2004 collected at the
Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport. The comparative modeling results showed
large reductions, up to approximately sixty percent, in predicted
ambient SO2 concentrations under the new operating scenario.
The modeling analysis demonstrated attainment of the NAAQS for
SO2 (3-hour, 24-hour, and annual). The maximum predicted
SO2 concentrations including neighboring emission sources
and a monitored background concentration were 517 micrograms per cubic
meter ([mu]g/m\3\) for the 3-hour average (compared to the
SO2 NAAQS of 1300 [mu]g/m\3\); 172 [mu]g/m\3\ for the 24-
hour average (compared to the SO2 NAAQS of 365 [mu]g/m\3\);
and 35 [mu]g/m\3\ for the annual average (compared to the
SO2 NAAQS of 80 [mu]g/m\3\).
    The dispersion modeling for this SIP revision request did not
specifically address the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. There were
difficulties in providing a full modeled 1-hour attainment
demonstration for the FHR Pine Bend SIP revision request which were
beyond FHR Pine Bend's control. Because the shutdown of the Merox
incinerator addresses a safety issue, Minnesota submitted the SIP
revision without waiting to complete a full 1-hour SO2
modeling demonstration. Nonattainment area designations have not yet
been promulgated nationally, so the 1-hour SO2 SIP
requirements for Dakota County have not yet been determined. The air
quality monitors in Dakota County clearly show that the area is
currently attaining the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. There are four
SO2 monitors located within three miles of the FHR Pine Bend
facility. The SO2 concentrations at all four monitors are
well below the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The highest of the four
monitors' 2008-2010 design value concentrations was 20 parts per
billion (ppb)(compared to the SO2 NAAQS of 75 ppb). For the
period 2009-2011, the highest of the four Dakota County monitors'
design values was 19 ppb (both design values cited here are from the
same monitor). This monitor is located less than one mile east of FHR
Pine Bend. Minnesota has recommended that EPA designate Dakota County
``unclassifiable'' for the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Minnesota must
meet the applicable requirements for Dakota County's final
SO2 designation, which may include a modeled demonstration
that the entire county will continue to maintain the 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS. In the meantime, given the significant
SO2 emission reductions in the FHR Pine Bend SIP revision
submittal, and the fact that the new facility operating scenario has
also resulted in reductions in modeled concentrations for the other
short-term SO2 standards, EPA believes that the August 29,
2011 SIP revision submittal does not endanger Dakota County's continued
attainment of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, and the SIP revision
will provide progress toward any future requirements for a modeled
demonstration of attainment of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in
Dakota County. It is important to note that future SIP revision
requests or modifications at this or other SO2-emitting
facilities may be required to include full modeled attainment
demonstrations for the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, in accordance with
section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act.
    EPA believes that Minnesota's August 29, 2011, request to revise
its SIP for FHR Pine Bend satisfies the requirements of section 110(l)
of the Clean Air Act. The SIP revision addresses a plant safety issue
and includes significant SO2 reductions which will help the
area continue to maintain the current SO2 standards.
Dispersion modeling shows that ambient SO2 impacts will
decrease under the new operating scenario. The SIP limits and modeling
continue to account for limited use of the Merox incinerator in case it
is temporarily needed during the transition to the new operating
scenario. Actual operations following the shutdown of the Merox
incinerator will therefore produce less SO2 than the modeled
amount. For these reasons, EPA believes that approval of the August 29,
2011 SIP revision request

will not jeopardize Dakota County's attainment of the SO2
NAAQS.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving Minnesota's August 29, 2011, SO2 SIP
revision request for FHR Pine Bend, in Dakota County. This SIP revision
addresses an operating change based on a safety issue, and also results
in a large decrease in SO2 emissions at the facility. This
SIP revision is not expected to jeopardize attainment of the
SO2 NAAQS in Dakota County.
    We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse
written comments are filed. This rule will be effective April 1, 2013
without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written
comments by March 4, 2013. If we receive such comments, we will
withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a
subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public
comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment
period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do
so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an
amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may
be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those
provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective April
1, 2013.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act
and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action 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. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 1, 2013. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed
rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an
immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so
that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in
the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: January 17, 2013.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. In Sec.  52.1220, the table in paragraph (d) is amended by revising
the entry for ``Flint Hills Resources, L.P. (formerly Koch Petroleum)''
to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Minnesota Source-Specific Permits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         State
          Name of source              Permit No.    effective date    EPA approval date           Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend,    ..............        08/29/11  01/31/13, [INSERT      Amendment Nine to
 LLC.                                                                PAGE NUMBER WHERE      Findings and Order.
                                                                     THE DOCUMENT BEGINS].

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-02019 Filed 1-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P