[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 136 (Monday, July 16, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41697-41699]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16952]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0846; FRL-9698-3]

Stay of the Effectiveness of Requirements; Approval and
Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Federal
Implementation Plan for Interstate Transport of Pollution Affecting
Visibility and Best Available Retrofit Technology Determination

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is granting an administrative stay of the final rule
titled ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico;
Federal Implementation Plan for Interstate Transport of Pollution
Affecting Visibility and Best Available Retrofit Technology
Determination'' under the authority of the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA) for 90 days. Today's action reflects this stay in the Code of
Federal Regulations.

DATES: Effective July 16, 2012. 40 CFR 52.1628 is stayed until October
15, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0846. All documents in the docket are listed in
the Federal eRulemaking portal index at http://www.regulations.gov and
are available either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in
hard copy at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Ave., Dallas, TX, 75202-2733. To
inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during
normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. A reasonable fee may be charged for
copies.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Agustin Carbo-Lugo, EPA Region 6,
(214) 665-8037<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' ``our,'' or ``the Agency'' is used, we mean the EPA. Unless
otherwise specified, when we say the ``San Juan Generating Station,''
or ``SJGS,'' we mean units 1, 2, 3, and 4, inclusive.

I. Background

    On August 22, 2011, the EPA published a final rule disapproving a
portion of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision received from
the State of New Mexico on September 17, 2007, for the purpose of
addressing the ``good neighbor'' requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 1997 8-hour
ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or standards) and
the 1997 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS (the ``NM FIP
Rule'', 76 FR 52388). In that action, EPA disapproved the New Mexico
Interstate Transport SIP provisions that address the requirement of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) that emissions from New Mexico sources do
not interfere with measures required in the SIP of any other state
under part C of the CAA to protect visibility. We found that New Mexico
sources, except the San Juan Generating Station (SJGS), were
sufficiently controlled to eliminate interference from those sources
with the visibility programs of other states. EPA promulgated a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) requiring the implementation of nitrogen
oxides (NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission
limits necessary at the San Juan Generating Station to prevent such
interference. This FIP also addresses the Regional Haze (RH) Best
Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirement for NOX for
SJGS. In addition, EPA implemented sulfuric acid
(H2SO4) hourly emission limits at the SJGS, to
minimize the contribution of this compound to visibility impairment.
Finally, we found that compliance with the NOX,
SO2, and H2SO4 emission limits must be
within 5 years of the effective date of our final rule consistent with
the requirements of the regional haze regulations.
    Petitions for judicial review of the final rule were subsequently
filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The
petitioners bringing those challenges are WildEarth Guardians, Public
Service of New Mexico (PNM), and New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez
with the New Mexico Environment Department.
    By a letter to the EPA Administrator, dated April 26, 2012, the
Governor of New Mexico requested ``a short term (90-day) stay'' of the
federal implementation plan to evaluate the potential for alternatives
to the rule requirements. She presents a stay as being necessary for
``meaningful, productive negotiations'' that may lead to an avoidance
of litigation. By a letter to the acting Regional Administrator of EPA
Region 6, dated May 8, 2012, PNM also requested ``an opportunity to
engage in productive discussions as proposed by Governor Martinez.''
    We support discussions of any alternatives to the federal
implementation plan that would be consistent with regional haze rule
requirements and the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the
CAA. If such an alternative arises through discussions with the State
of New Mexico, as well as other stakeholders, it may provide a basis
for submittal by the state of a revised SIP, withdrawal of the FIP, and
the resolution of pending litigation.

II. Today's Final Rule

A. Issuance of a Stay and Delay of the Effectiveness of the NM FIP Rule

    Pursuant to section 705 of the APA, the EPA hereby stays the
effectiveness of the NM FIP Rule for a period of 90 days from the date
of publication of this Federal Register notice. By this action, we are
staying the effectiveness of the rule published in the Federal Register
on August 22, 2011 (76 FR 52388). This stay of effectiveness will
remain in place for 90 days from today. This action adds a note to 40
CFR 52.1628 that there is a 90 day stay of the effectiveness of the NM
FIP Rule, but, in its substance, it does not alter any future
compliance requirements. There are no compliance obligations under the
terms of the NM FIP that arise during the 90 day period.
    Under section 705 of the APA, ``an agency * * * may postpone the
effective date of [an] action taken by it pending judicial review.''
This source of authority requires an Agency finding that ``justice
requires'' a temporary stay of rule requirements. Accordingly, as
groundwork for the mentioned discussions among the Agency, the State of
New Mexico, and other stakeholders, EPA now finds that justice requires
a 90-day stay of the rule's effectiveness. Our temporary stay of the
effectiveness of the NM FIP Rule applies only to any requirements
established in 40 CFR 52.1628 during the 90-day stay and does not
extend the ultimate compliance timeframe set out in the rule, which is
a statutory requirement under CAA section 169A(b)(2)(A). Nevertheless,
EPA intends to undertake a future rulemaking to either: (1) Extend the
compliance time for the NM FIP to accommodate the stay; or (2) account
for an alternative proposal. If the

discussions of new alternatives lead to an additional regulatory
proposal, the public would have the opportunity to evaluate and comment
on such new proposal through EPA's rulemaking process.

B. Basis for Making This Action Effective on the Date of Publication

    The EPA also believes that there is good cause to make today's
action effective immediately, rather than effective within 30 days,
within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). One purpose of the 30-day
waiting period prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 553(d) is to give affected
parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before
the final action takes effect. Whereas here, the affected parties are
anticipating this action and requesting the flexibility it provides,
and any delay in its effectiveness will result in unnecessary delays
for productive negotiations. Therefore, balancing the necessity for
immediate implementation against principles of fundamental fairness,
which require that all affected persons be afforded a reasonable amount
of time to prepare for the effective date of this action, EPA has
determined that it is unnecessary, impracticable and contrary to the
public interest to delay this action. Additionally, since this action
does not ``implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy,'' within
the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 551(4), nor makes changes to substantive
requirements, EPA concludes that it does not constitute a substantive
rulemaking. Therefore, it is not subject to notice and comment
requirements.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    This action will stay the effectiveness of the NM FIP for 90 days
and imposes no additional requirements. This type of action is exempt
from review under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993)
and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, a ``collection of information'' is
defined as a requirement for ``answers to * * * identical reporting or
recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or more persons * * *'' 44
U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). Because the temporary stay is for the effectiveness
of a rule that applies to a single facility, (SJGS), the Paperwork
Reduction Act does not apply. See 5 CFR part 1320(c).
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for our
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This action is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),
which generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility
analysis for any rule that will have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules
subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the APA or
any other statute. This action is not subject to notice and comment
requirements under the APA or any other statute because, although
subject to the APA, this action does not ``implement, interpret, or
prescribe law or policy,'' within the meaning of APA Sec.  551(4).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. EPA has determined that this temporary stay does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures that exceed the
inflation-adjusted UMRA threshold of $100 million by State, local, or
Tribal governments or the private sector in any 1-year. Therefore, this
action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the
UMRA.
    This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203
of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action stays
the effectiveness of the NM FIP for 90 days and imposes no additional
regulatory requirements.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This temporary stay does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship
between the national government and the states, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. This action merely temporarily
stays the effectiveness of a final rule. Thus, Executive Order 13132
does not apply to this action.

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

    EPA will consult and coordinate with Tribes regarding BART
alternatives during the stay, however, this temporary stay does not
have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), because it neither imposes substantial direct
compliance costs on tribal governments, nor preempts tribal law.
Furthermore, this action does not ``implement, interpret, or prescribe
law or policy,'' within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 551(4), and therefore,
it does not constitute a substantive rulemaking. As such, this action
only grants a 90-day stay of the effectiveness of the NM FIP Rule
without altering any future established compliance requirements.
Therefore, the requirements of section 5(b) and 5(c) of the Executive
Order do not apply to this action.

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

    This temporary stay is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because
it is not a rule of general applicability, it is not economically
significant as defined under Executive Order 12866, and does not have a
disproportionate effect on children.
    Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to
any rule that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on
children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must
evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule
on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to
other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the Agency.

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This temporary stay is not subject to the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''). Section 12(d) of the
NTTAA, Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs EPA to
use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless
to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress,
through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available
and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA
did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

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

    This temporary stay is not subject to Executive Order 12898.
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this action will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
change the substance of 40 CFR 52.1628.

K. Congressional Review Act

    This action is not subject to the Congressional Review Act
(``CRA''). The CRA, 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. The Section 804(3) of the CRA defines ``rule'' as having
the same meaning given to such term in section 551 of the APA. See 5
U.S.C. 551(4). Since this action is not designed to implement,
interpret, or prescribe law or policy, within the meaning of APA, this
action is exempted from the reporting requirements of the CRA.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Best available
control technology, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Interstate transport of pollution, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Regional haze, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Visibility.

    Dated: July 2, 2012.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

    Title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations 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. Effective July 16, 2012, 40 CFR 52.1628 is stayed until October 15,
2012.

[FR Doc. 2012-16952 Filed 7-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: June 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 125)]
[Notices]
[Page 37860-37861]
[DOCID:fr30jn10-112]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

Aris Industries, Inc., Bene Io, Inc., Commodore Separation
Technologies, Inc., Food Integrated Technologies, Inc., Gap Instrument
Corp., Skysat Communications Network Corp., and Vicon Fiber Optics
Corp.; Order of Suspension of Trading

June 28, 2010.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Aris Industries, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended June 30, 2004.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Bene Io, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the
period ended September 30, 2000.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Commodore Separation Technologies, Inc. because it has not filed any
periodic reports since the period ended June 30, 2004.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Food Integrated Technologies, Inc. because it has not filed any
periodic reports since the period ended January 31, 1997.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Gap

Instrument Corp. because it has not filed any periodic reports since
the period ended September 30, 1997.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Skysat Communications Network Corp. because it has not filed any
periodic reports since the period ended September 30, 1997.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Vicon Fiber Optics Corp. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended September 30, 2003.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies. Therefore, it is ordered,
pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that
trading in the securities of the above-listed companies is suspended
for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on June 28, 2010, through 11:59 p.m.
EDT on July 12, 2010.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-16000 Filed 6-28-10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 33327]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14075]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2011-0006]

Agency Information Collection Activities, Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request; Property Acquisition and Relocation for Open
Space

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice; 30-day notice and request for comments; extension,
without change, of a currently approved information collection; FEMA
Form 086-0-31 (previously FEMA Form 81-112), Statement of Voluntary
Participation for Acquisition of Property for Purpose of Open Space.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the
information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and
Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the
nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents,
the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by
respondents to respond) and cost, and the actual data collection
instruments FEMA will use.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 8, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk
Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director,
Records Management Division, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA
20598-3005, facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Collection of Information

    Title: Property Acquisition and Relocation for Open Space.
    Type of information collection: Extension, without change, of a
currently approved information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0103.
    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 086-0-31 (previously FEMA Form
81-112), Statement of Voluntary Participation for Acquisition of
Property for Purpose of Open Space.
    Abstract: FEMA and State and local recipients of FEMA mitigation
grant programs will use the information collected to meet the Property
Acquisition requirements to implement acquisition activities under the
terms of grant agreements for acquisition and relocation activities.
FEMA and State/local grant recipients will also use the information to
monitor and enforce the open space requirements for all properties
acquired with FEMA mitigation grants.
    Affected Public: State, local or Tribal Government; Individuals or
Households.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 56.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Average Hour Burden per Respondent: Property Owners
Voluntary Participation Statements/FEMA Form 086-0-31 (previously FEMA
Form 81-112), 1 hour; States Review and Submit Deed Restrictions, 4
hours; State Officials Reporting Requirements, 1 hour and 18 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 11,273 hours.
    Estimated Cost: There are no operation and maintenance, or capital
and start-up costs associated with this collection of information.

    Dated: June 1, 2011.
Lesia M. Banks,
Director, Records Management Division, Mission Support Bureau, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2011-14075 Filed 6-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 50 (Monday, March 16, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13483-13486]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05735]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-0491; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-019-AD;
Amendment 39-18117; AD 2015-05-07]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2015-02-06 for
certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes.
AD 2015-02-06 required a revision to the airplane flight manual, a
revision to the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, and
replacement of horizontal stabilizer trim actuators (HSTAs) having
certain part numbers. This new AD continues to require those actions
and corrects certain typographical errors. This AD was prompted by the
discovery of three typographical errors in AD 2015-02-06. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct loose spur gear bolts on the
HSTA, which, if combined with the failure of the primary load path,
could lead to failure of the HSTA and subsequent loss of the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective March 16, 2015.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of March 6, 2015
(80 FR 5017, January 30, 2015).
    We must receive comments on this AD by April 30, 2015

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec
H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You
may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
0491; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ricardo Garcia, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On January 11, 2015, we issued AD 2015-02-06, Amendment 39-18073
(80 FR 5017, January 30, 2015). AD 2015-02-06 applied to certain
Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes. AD 2015-
02-06 was prompted by reports of loose, broken, or backed-out spur gear
bolts on the HSTA. AD 2015-02-06 required a revision to the airplane
flight manual, a revision to the maintenance or inspection program, as
applicable, and replacement of HSTAs having certain part numbers. We
issued AD 2015-02-06 to detect and correct loose spur gear bolts on the
HSTA, which, if combined with the failure of the primary load path,
could lead to failure of the HSTA and subsequent loss of the airplane.
    Since we issued AD 2015-02-06, Amendment 39-18073 (80 FR 5017,
January 30, 2015), three typographical errors were discovered in AD
2015-02-06.
    As published, a digit was missing from the engineer's phone number
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of the preamble of AD
2015-02-06, Amendment 39-18073 (80 FR 5017, January 30, 2015). The
correct phone number is ``516-228-7331.''
    As published, the AD number of AD 2015-02-06, Amendment 39-18073
(80 FR 5017, January 30, 2015), appears as ``2014-02-06'' in the
Product Identification line of the regulatory text of the AD. The
correct AD number is ``2015-02-06.'' The AD number is referenced
correctly throughout the remainder of that document.
    As published, a vendor part number in paragraph (j) of AD 2015-02-
06, Amendment 39-18073 (80 FR 5017, January 30, 2015), was incorrectly
identified as ``845401.'' The correct vendor part number is ``8454-1.''
    Since this new AD replaces AD 2015-02-06, Amendment 39-18073 (80 FR
5017, January 30, 2015), there are no additional changes in this new
AD.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies
waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because of
the urgency to correct the part number and AD number errors to avoid
non-compliance. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity
for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that
good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30
days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public
comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2015-0491; Directorate
Identifier 2015-NM-019-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of
those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 125 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The actions required by AD 2015-02-06, Amendment 39-18073 (80 FR
5017, January 30, 2015), and retained in this AD take about 21 work-
hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour.
Required parts cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, the
estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2015-02-06 is
$1,785 per product.
    The new requirements of this AD add no additional economic burden.
    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be
covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD)
2015-02-06, Amendment 39-18073 (80 FR 5017, January 30, 2015), and
adding the following new AD:

2015-05-07 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-18117. Docket No. FAA-
2015-0491; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-019-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective March 16, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2015-02-06, Amendment 39-18073 (80 FR 5017,
January 30, 2015).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604
Variant) airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers
5301 and subsequent, equipped with horizontal stabilizer trim
actuator (HSTA) part number (P/N) 604-92305-3 (vendor P/N 8454-1) or
P/N 604-92305-5 (vendor P/N 8454-2).

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight
Controls.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by the discovery of three typographical
errors in AD 2015-02-06. We are issuing this AD to detect and
correct loose spur gear bolts on the HSTA, which, if combined with
the failure of the primary load path, could lead to failure of the
HSTA and subsequent loss of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Retained Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) Revision, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD
2015-02-06, Amendment 39-18073 (80 FR 5017, January 30, 2015), with
no changes. Within 30 days after March 6, 2015 (the effective date
of AD 2015-02-06: Revise the Normal Procedures section of the
applicable Bombardier AFM to include the information in the
applicable temporary revision (TR) specified in paragraph (g)(1) or
(g)(2) of this AD. The TRs introduce revised procedures for the
stabilizer trim system check. Operate the airplane according to the
limitations and procedures in the applicable TR. The revision may be
done by inserting a copy of the applicable TR specified in paragraph
(g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD into the AFM. When the TR has been
included in the general revisions of the AFM, the general revisions
may be inserted into the AFM, provided the relevant information in
the general revision is identical to that in the applicable TR, and
the TR may be removed.
    (1) Bombardier Temporary Revision (TR) 604/37, dated May 21,
2013, to the Bombardier Challenger CL-604 Airplane Flight Manual,
PSP 604-1.
    (2) Bombardier TR 605/18, dated May 21, 2013, to the Bombardier
Challenger CL-605 Airplane Flight Manual, PSP 605-1.

(h) Retained Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision, With No
Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD
2015-02-06, Amendment 39-18073 (80 FR 5017, January 30, 2015), with
no changes. Within 30 days after March 6, 2015 (the effective date
of AD 2015-02-06): Revise the maintenance or inspection program, as
applicable, by incorporating procedures for an Operational Test
(BITE) of the Horizontal Stabilizer Trim Controls System (HSTCS), in
accordance with a method approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil
Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval
Organization (DAO). The initial compliance time for the operational
test is within 100 flight hours after March 6, 2015 (the effective
date of AD 2015-02-06).

    Note 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD:  Bombardier Task 27-41-00-
101, Operational Test (BITE) of the Horizontal Stabilizer Trim
Controls System (HSTCS), provides guidance for the operational test
specified in paragraph (h) of this AD. Bombardier Task 27-41-00-101
is included in the Bombardier Challenger 604 Time Limits/Maintenance
Checks (TLMC) Manual; and in the Bombardier Challenger 605 TLMC
Manual.

(i) Retained No Alternative Actions or Intervals, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD
2015-02-06, Amendment 39-18073 (80 FR 5017, January 30, 2015), with
no changes. After the maintenance or inspection program has been
revised, as required by paragraph (h) of this AD, no alternative
actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used unless the
actions or intervals are approved as an alternative method of
compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (m)(1) of this AD.

(j) Retained HSTA Replacement, With Corrected Vendor Part Number

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (j) of AD
2015-02-06, Amendment 39-18073 (80 FR 5017, January 30, 2015), with
a corrected vendor part number. For airplanes equipped with a HSTA
having P/N 604-92305-3 (vendor P/N 8454-1) or P/N 604-92305-5
(vendor P/N 8454-2): Within 3,000 flight hours or 26 months after
March 6, 2015 (the effective date of AD 2015-02-06), whichever
occurs first, replace any HSTA having P/N 604-92305-3 (vendor P/N
8454-1) or P/N 604-92305-5 (vendor P/N 8454-2) with a HSTA having P/
N 604-92305-7 (vendor P/N 8454-3), in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-27-
032, Revision 02, dated April 22, 2014; or Bombardier Service
Bulletin 605-27-002, Revision 02, dated April 22, 2014; as
applicable.

(k) Retained Credit for Previous Actions, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (k) of AD
2015-02-06, Amendment 39-18073 (80 FR 5017, January 30, 2015), with
no changes. This paragraph provides credit for the actions required
by paragraph (j) of this AD if those actions were performed before
March 6, 2015 (the effective date of AD 2015-02-06) using the
service information identified in paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(4)
of this AD, as applicable. This service information is not
incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (1) Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-27-032, dated September 10,
2012.
    (2) Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-27-032, Revision 01, dated
April 29, 2013.
    (3) Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-27-002, dated September 10,
2012.
    (4) Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-27-002, Revision 01, April
29, 2013.

(l) Retained Parts Installation Prohibition, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (l) of AD
2015-02-06, Amendment 39-18073 (80 FR 5017, January 30, 2015), with
no changes. As of March 6, 2015 (the effective date of AD 2015-02-
06), no person may install any HSTA having P/N 604-92305-3 (vendor
P/N 8454-1) or 604-92305-5 (vendor P/N 8454-2) on any airplane.

(m) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO, ANE-170, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In
accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal
inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate.
If sending information directly to the ACO, send it to ATTN: Program
Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600
Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-
7300; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must
specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO,
ANE-170; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO. If approved by the
DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

(n) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2013-18 dated July 16,
2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0491.
    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (o)(4) and (o)(5) of this AD.

(o) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
March 6, 2015 (80 FR 5017, January 30, 2015).
    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-27-032, Revision 02, dated
April 22, 2014.
    (ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-27-002, Revision 02, dated
April 22, 2014.
    (iii) Bombardier Temporary Revision 604/37, dated May 21, 2013,
to the Bombardier Challenger CL-604 Airplane Flight Manual, PSP 604-
1.
    (iv) Bombardier Temporary Revision 605/18, dated May 21, 2013,
to the Bombardier Challenger CL-605 Airplane Flight Manual, PSP 605-
1.
    (4) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 514-855-
7401; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com.
    (5) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (6) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 5, 2015.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-05735 Filed 3-13-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 171 (Friday, September 2, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54749-54750]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22513]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC11-523-001]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-523); Comment
Request; Submitted for OMB Review

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Energy.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of section 3507 of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) has submitted the
information collection described below to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements. Any
interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should
address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below.
The Commission issued a Notice in the Federal Register (76 FR 35870, 6/
20/2011) requesting public comments. FERC received no comments on the
FERC-523 and has made this notation in its submission to OMB.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due by October 3,
2011.

ADDRESSES: Address comments on the collection of information to the
Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Desk Officer.
Comments to Created by OMB should be filed electronically, c/o<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and include OMB Control Number 1902-0043 for
reference. The Desk Officer may be reached by telephone at 202-395-
4638.
    A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission and should refer to Docket No. IC11-523-001.
Comments may be filed either electronically or in paper format. Those
persons filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing.
Documents filed electronically via the Internet must be prepared in an
acceptable filing format and in compliance with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission submission guidelines. Complete filing
instructions and acceptable filing formats are available at http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. To file the document
electronically, access the Commission's website and click on Documents
& Filing, E-Filing (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp), and
then follow

the instructions for each screen. First time users will have to
establish a user name and password. The Commission will send an
automatic acknowledgement to the sender's e-mail address upon receipt
of comments.
    For paper filings, the comments should be submitted to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, and should refer to Docket No. IC11-
523-001.
    Users interested in receiving automatic notification of activity in
FERC Docket Number IC11-523 may do so through eSubscription at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp. All comments may be viewed,
printed or downloaded remotely via the Internet through FERC's homepage
using the ``eLibrary'' link. For user assistance, contact
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by e-mail
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and fax at
(202) 273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information collection is under the
requirements of FERC-523, ``Applications for Authorization for Issuance
of Securities or the Assumption of Liabilities'', OMB Control No. 1902-
0043.
    Federal Power Act (FPA) section 204, 16 USC 824c, prohibits public
utilities and licensees from issuing any security, or assuming any
obligation or liability as guarantor, endorser, surety, or otherwise in
respect of any security of another person, unless they have submitted
an application to the Commission and receive Commission authorization
to do so. The Commission issues an order if it finds that the security
issue or assumption meets three criteria. First, it is for ``lawful
object,'' within the corporate purposes of the applicant and compatible
with the public interest. Second it is necessary or appropriate for or
consistent with the proper performance by the applicant as a public
utility. Third, it will not impair its ability to perform service, and
(b) is reasonably necessary or appropriate to perform service.
    The Commission uses the information contained in filings to
determine its acceptance and/or rejection of applications for
authorization to either issue securities or to assume an obligation or
liability by the public utilities and their licensees who make these
applications.
    The Commission implements this statute through its regulations,
which are found at 18 CFR part 34; and 18 CFR 131.43 and 131.50. Part
131 prescribes the required filing format. The information is filed
electronically.
    Action: The Commission is requesting a three-year extension of the
current expiration date with no changes to the current reporting
requirements.
    Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this collection is
estimated as:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Number of responses        Number of responses per     Average burden hours per
          annually                    respondent                   response            Total annual burden hours
(1)                                            (2)                          (3)             (1) x (2) x (3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   78                          1.7                           88           11,669 (Rounded).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimated total cost to respondents is $798,721 [11,669 hours/
2080 hours \1\ per year, times $142,372 \2\ equals $798,721]. The cost
per respondent annually is $10,240. This is an increase from 60 to
currently 78 utilities filing annually. An increase from 1 to 1.7
filings per utility annually was also seen. The Commission considers
this a normal fluctuation due to market activities and filing times
chosen. Utilities file periodically, therefore the number of filings
are expected to continue to fluctuate from year-to-year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Number of hours an employee works each year.
    \2\ Average annual salary per employee (including overhead).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The reporting burden includes the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide
the information including: (1) Reviewing instructions; (2) developing,
acquiring, installing, using technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, verifying, processing, maintaining, disclosing
and providing information; (3) adjusting the existing ways to comply
with any previously applicable filing instructions and requirements;
(4) training personnel to respond to this collection of information;
(5) searching data sources; (6) completing and reviewing the collection
of information; and (7) transmitting, or otherwise disclosing the
information.
    The cost estimate for respondents is based upon salaries for
professional and clerical support, as well as direct and indirect
overhead costs. Direct costs include all costs directly attributable to
providing this information, such as administrative costs and the cost
for information technology. Indirect or overhead costs are costs
incurred by an organization in support of its mission. These costs
apply to activities which benefit the whole organization rather than
any one particular function or activity.
    Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms
of information technology e.g. permitting electronic submission of
responses.

    Dated: August 29, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-22513 Filed 9-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 41 (Thursday, March 1, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8758-8764]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04193]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0447; FRL-9971-19]

Methyl Bromide; Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes time-limited tolerances for
residues of the fumigant methyl bromide, including its metabolites and
degradates in or on post-harvest imported/domestic agricultural
commodities. This action is in response to EPA's granting quarantine
exemptions under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA) authorizing use of the pesticide on specified agricultural
commodities. This regulation establishes a maximum permissible level
for residues of methyl bromide in or on these commodities. The time-
limited tolerances expire on December 31, 2020.

DATES: This regulation is effective March 1, 2018. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before April 30, 2018, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0447, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
    [emsp14]Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    [emsp14]Animal production (NAICS code 112).
    [emsp14]Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
    [emsp14]Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

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

    Under section 408(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect
of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections.
You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in
accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure
proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2017-0447 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All
objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be
received by the Hearing Clerk on or before April 30, 2018. Addresses
for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are
provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0447, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    EPA, on its own initiative, in accordance with FFDCA sections
408(e) and 408(l)(6) of, 21 U.S.C. 346a(e) and 346a(1)(6), is
establishing time-limited tolerances for residues of methyl bromide, in
or on the following agricultural commodities: Avocado at 5.0 parts per
million (ppm); Banana at 5.0 ppm; Cactus at 3.0 ppm; Coconut, copra at
8.0 ppm; Coffee, green bean at 150 ppm; Cola at 150 ppm; Cucurbit, seed
at 150 ppm; Fig at 10 ppm; Fruit, berry and small fruit, group 13-07 at
5.0 ppm; Fruit, stone, group 12-12 at 5.0 ppm; Herbs and spices, group
19 at 35 ppm; Hibiscus, seed at 150 ppm; Ivy gourd at 5.0 ppm; Kaffir
lime, leaves at 0.50 ppm; Kenaf, seed at 150 ppm; Longan at 5.0 ppm;
Lychee at 5.0 ppm; Oilseed group 20 at 150 ppm; Peppermint, tops at 35
ppm; Pointed gourd at 5.0 ppm; Pomegranate at 5.0 ppm; Rambutan at 5.0
ppm; Spanish Lime 5.0 ppm; Spearmint, tops at 35 ppm; Stalk, stem and
leaf petiole vegetable group 22 at 0.50 ppm; Tropical and subtropical
fruits, edible peel, group 23 at 10.0 ppm; Tropical and subtropical
fruits, inedible peel, group 24 at 5.0 ppm; Vegetable, Head and Stem
Brassica, group 5-16 at 1.0 ppm; Vegetable, bulb, group 3-07 at 2.0
ppm; Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 at 5.0 ppm; Vegetable, foliage of
legume, group 7 at 0.50 ppm; Vegetable fruiting, group 8-10 at 7.0 ppm;
Vegetable, leafy, group 4-16 at 0.50 ppm; Vegetable leaves of root and
tuber, group 2 at 0.50 ppm; Vegetable, legume, group 6 at 3.0 ppm;
Vegetable, root and tuber, group 1 at 3.0 ppm. These time-limited
tolerances expire on December 31, 2020.
    Section 408(l)(6) of FFDCA requires EPA to establish a time-limited
tolerance or exemption from the requirement for a tolerance for
pesticide chemical residues in food that will result from the use of a
pesticide under an emergency exemption granted by EPA under FIFRA
section 18. Such tolerances can be established without providing notice
or period for public comment. EPA does not intend for its actions on
FIFRA section 18 related time-limited tolerances to set binding
precedents for the application of FFDCA section 408 and the safety
standard to other tolerances and exemptions. Section 408(e) of FFDCA
allows EPA to establish a tolerance or an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance on its own initiative, i.e., without having
received any petition from an outside party.
    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Section 18 of FIFRA authorizes EPA to exempt any Federal or State
agency from any provision of FIFRA, if EPA determines that ``emergency
conditions exist which require such exemption.'' EPA has established
regulations governing such emergency exemptions in 40 CFR part 166.

III. Emergency Exemptions for Methyl Bromide on Various Commodities and
FFDCA Tolerances

    Quarantine exemptions were issued to the Plant Protection and
Quarantine (PPQ) division of the United States Department of
Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA/APHIS),
for the post-harvest use of the fumigant methyl bromide on imported and
domestic commodities to target invasive, non-indigenous quarantine
plant pests and to prevent the introduction and/or spread of any new or
recently introduced foreign pest(s) to any U.S. geographical location.
    After having reviewed the submissions, EPA determined that
emergency conditions existed for the PPQ division of the USDA/APHIS,
and that the criteria for approval of these quarantine exemptions were
met. EPA authorized quarantine exemptions under FIFRA section 18 for
the post-harvest use of methyl bromide in or on specified imported and
domestic agricultural commodities to eliminate the threat of invasive
plant pests.
    As part of its evaluation of the proposed quarantine emergency
uses, EPA assessed the potential risks presented by residues of methyl
bromide in or on specified imported and

domestic agricultural commodities. In doing so, EPA considered the
safety standard in FFDCA section 408(b)(2), and EPA decided that the
necessary time-limited tolerances under FFDCA section 408(l)(6) would
be consistent with the safety standard and with FIFRA section 18.
Consistent with the need to move quickly on the quarantine exemption
actions in order to address urgent non-routine situations and to ensure
that the resulting food is safe and lawful, EPA issued these time-
limited tolerances without notice and opportunity for public comment as
provided in FFDCA section 408(l)(6). Although these time-limited
tolerances expire on December 31, 2020, under FFDCA section 408(l)(5),
residues of the pesticide not in excess of the amounts specified in the
tolerances remaining in or on the specified agricultural commodities
after that date will not be unlawful, provided the pesticide was
applied in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA, and the residues do
not exceed levels that were authorized by these time-limited tolerances
at the time of the applications. EPA will take action to revoke these
time-limited tolerances earlier if any experience with, scientific data
on, or other relevant information on this pesticide indicate that the
residues are not safe.
    Because these time-limited tolerances are being approved under
emergency conditions, EPA has not made any decisions about whether
methyl bromide meets FIFRA's registration requirements for use on the
specified agricultural commodities or whether permanent tolerances for
these uses would be appropriate. Under these circumstances, EPA does
not believe that these time-limited tolerance decisions serve as a
basis for registration of methyl bromide by a State for special local
needs under FIFRA section 24(c). Nor do these tolerances by themselves
serve as the authority for persons other than certified fumigators to
use this pesticide on the applicable crops under FIFRA section 18
absent the authorization of the quarantine exemption issued to the
Plant Protection and Quarantine division of the United States
Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
For additional information regarding the quarantine exemptions for
methyl bromide, contact the Agency's Registration Division at the
address provided under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

A. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides. Further, the Agency's exposure and risk assessment for
the emergency use of methyl bromide on various agricultural commodities
is discussed in greater detail in the following documents: Methyl
Bromide. Section 18 Emergency Quarantine Exemption Use on commodities
Requested by the U.S. Department of Agriculture/Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service/Plant Protection and Quarantine (USDA/APHIS/PPQ)
Division, May 02, 2017 and Methyl Bromide: Human Health Risk Assessment
for the Section 18 Emergency Exemption Use on USDA APHIS PPQ
Commodities, September 13, 2013 are available in the docket at the
address provided under ADDRESSES. A summary of the toxicological
endpoints for methyl bromide used for human risk assessment is shown
below in Table 1 of this unit.

Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Methyl Bromide for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Point of departure
        Exposure/scenario            and uncertainty/     RfD, PAD, LOC for     Study and toxicological effects
                                      safety factors       risk assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (Females 13-50       Dev. NOAEL = 14 mg/   Acute RfD = 0.14 mg/ Developmental Toxicity--Rabbit
 years of age).                     kg/day.               kg/day.              (Inhalation).
                                   UF = 100x...........  aPAD = 0.14 mg/kg/   LOAEL = 28 mg/kg/day based on
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........   day.                 agenesis of the gall bladder and
                                                                               increased incidence of fused
                                                                               sternebrae.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Acute dietary (General population  NOAEL = 90 mg/kg/day  Acute RfD = 0.9 mg/  Acute neurotoxicity study--rat
 including infants and children).  UF = 100x...........   kg/day.              (Inhalation).
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........  aPAD = 0.9 mg/kg/    LOAEL = 314 mg/kg/day based on
                                                          day.                 decreased activity, increase in
                                                                               number of animals with drooping/
                                                                               half-closed eyelids and alertness
                                                                               as measured in the Functional
                                                                               Observational Battery (FOB),
                                                                               decreased rears, decreased motor
                                                                               activity, increased piloerection
                                                                               and decreased body temperature.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary (All populations)  NOAEL = 2.2 mg/kg/    Chronic RfD = 0.022  Chronic/carcinogenicity study--
                                    day.                  mg/kg/day.           rats.
                                   UF = 100x...........  cPAD = 0.022 mg/kg/  LOAEL = 11.1 mg/kg/day based on
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........   day.                 based on decreased body weight,
                                                                               body weight gain and food
                                                                               consumption.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation)             Classification: Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. NOAEL = no-
  observed-adverse-effect-level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose.
  UF =uncertainty factor.

B. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to methyl bromide, EPA considered exposure under the time-
limited tolerances established by this action as well as all existing
methyl bromide tolerances in 40 CFR 180.124.
    EPA assessed dietary exposures from methyl bromide in food as
follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Acute effects were identified for methyl
bromide. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food
consumption information from the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) 2003-2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). For purposes of this
acute exposure assessment, EPA calculated residue levels based on
dissipation and time-to-market data, assumed 100 percent crop treated
(PCT) and assumed that no residues were present in any processed
commodity where heating was involved.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 2003-2008
NHANES/WWEIA. To estimate chronic exposure from residues in food, EPA
calculated residue levels based on dissipation and time-to-market data,
assumed 100% crop treated, and assumed that no residues were present in
any processed commodity where heating was involved. For the chronic
exposure assessment, consumption data were averaged for the entire U.S.
population and within population subgroups.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit IV.A., Table 1,
EPA has concluded that methyl bromide does not pose a cancer risk to
humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of
assessing cancer risk in unnecessary.
    EPA reviewed numerous residue trials submitted by industry
(controlled fumigation trials) in support of the reregistration of
methyl bromide. Residue levels were calculated using residue decline
curves for each commodity assuming first order kinetics and taking into
account minimum predicted time intervals between fumigation and market
availability. USDA APHIS requested uses on additional crops, providing
detailed use pattern data. For these crops, residue levels were
translated from similar commodities having residue trial data,
considering use patterns and taking into account time intervals between
fumigation and market availability.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for methyl bromide in drinking water. These simulation
models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/
transport characteristics of methyl bromide. Further information
regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure
assessment can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    The methyl bromide Estimated Drinking Water Concentration was
derived from groundwater estimates. Based on data from the database of
pesticides in groundwater (U.S. EPA, 1992), two wells in California
(out of 20,429 wells monitored in Florida, California, and Hawaii) had
methyl bromide levels of 2.5 and 6.4 microgram/Liter ([mu]g/L). The
highest groundwater monitoring value of 6.4 parts per billion (ppb) was
used for both the acute and chronic (non-cancer) assessments.
Concentrations of methyl bromide in surface water are considered
negligible due to the rapid dissipation of methyl bromide from water to
the air (half-life of 73 minutes).
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    Methyl bromide is a restricted use pesticide and is not registered
for any specific residential use patterns; however, there is potential
for residential bystander inhalation exposure in and around port areas
where post-harvest commodity fumigation treatments takes place. Buffers
have been implemented on all methyl bromide labels, which reduce
bystander exposures to levels that do not exceed the Agency's level of
concern.
    Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic
inputs for residential exposures may be found at: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac/science/trac6a05.pdf.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other

substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found methyl bromide to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and methyl bromide does not appear
to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
methyl bromide does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

C. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional SF when reliable data
available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. No evidence of increased
quantitative or qualitative susceptibility was observed in
developmental toxicity studies in rats or rabbits. The rabbit
inhalation developmental study also did not indicate susceptibility to
the young as the dams and the offspring had identical NOAEL and LOAEL
values.
    Therefore, toxicity studies on adults will not underestimate the
risks methyl bromide poses to children.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show that the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for methyl bromide is complete.
    ii. There is no indication that methyl bromide is a neurotoxic
chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study
or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence that methyl bromide results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies. In the rat developmental inhalation study there
was no indication of susceptibility to the young, at doses up to 70
ppm. The rabbit inhalation developmental study also did not indicate
susceptibility to the young, as the dams and the offspring had
identical NOAEL and LOAEL values.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The use of inhalation studies to assess dietary risks is a
conservative (protective) approach since inhalation exposure is
expected to lead to a higher internal dose than dietary exposure since
chemicals will enter the circulatory system before many of the
detoxification processes associated with oral exposure (e.g. first pass
effect) occur. Therefore, these assessments will not underestimate the
exposure and risks posed by methyl bromide.

D. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD) presented in Unit IV.A. Table
1. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by
comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure
to the appropriate PODs in Table 1 to ensure that an adequate MOE
exists.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in Unit
IV.B. for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and
water to methyl bromide will occupy 3.5% of the aPAD for children 1-2
years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. The
Agency has determined that dietary risk estimates for aggregate acute
exposure through food and water to methyl bromide are below the
Agency's level of concern for the U.S. population and all population
subgroups. There is also potential for inhalation exposure to
residential bystanders. However, since the dietary contribution to
acute aggregate risk is negligible, EPA has determined that the
mitigation measures EPA required in the 2006 Tolerance Reassessment and
Risk Management Decision (TRED) for Methyl Bromide, and Reregistration
Eligibility Decision (RED) for Methyl Bromide's Commodity Uses to
protect residential bystanders will ensure that acute aggregate risks
do not exceed EPA's level of concern.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in Unit
IV.B. for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
methyl bromide from food and water will utilize 43% of the cPAD for
(children 1-2 years old) the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. Based on the explanation in the unit regarding residential
use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of methyl
bromide is not expected. Although there is potential for inhalation
exposure to residential bystanders, EPA did not aggregate short-,
intermediate-term, or chronic dietary and inhalation exposures to
methyl bromide because endpoints for dietary and inhalation exposures
for these durations are not based on common toxicological effects.
Methyl bromide is not registered for use in residential settings;
therefore, residential exposures from the direct use of methyl bromide
in residential areas is not expected.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term risk is assessed based on short-term
residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Methyl bromide is
not registered for use in residential settings; therefore, residential
handler exposures from the direct use of methyl bromide in residential
areas is not expected. EPA did not aggregate short-, intermediate-term,
or chronic dietary and inhalation exposures to methyl bromide because
endpoints for dietary and inhalation exposures for these durations are
not based on common toxicological effects.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term risk is assessed based
on intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary
exposure. Methyl bromide is not registered for use in residential
settings; therefore, residential handler exposures from the direct use
of methyl bromide in residential areas is not expected. EPA did not
aggregate short-, intermediate-term, or chronic dietary and inhalation
exposures to methyl bromide because endpoints for dietary and
inhalation exposures for these durations are not based on common
toxicological effects.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, methyl bromide is not expected to pose a cancer risk to
humans.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children, from aggregate
exposure to methyl bromide residues.

V. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An adequate enforcement methodology (King headspace method, J.
Agricultural Food Chemistry, Vol 29, No. 5, pp 1003-1005) is available
to enforce the tolerance expression. This

method is a gas chromatography/electron capture (GC/EC) method that was
validated in 1987 in the EPA Environmental Chemistry Laboratory
(D168869, L. Cheng, 27-OCT-1992). The headspace procedure for
determining methyl bromide has been forwarded to FDA for inclusion in
PAM Vol. II. This method is adequate for data collection and for
tolerance enforcement on plant and processed food commodities.

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    Methyl bromide Codex MRLs have been established for several
commodities; however, there are no Codex MRLs for any of the
commodities that are the subject of this quarantine action. Therefore,
at this time, there are no harmonization issues.

VI. Conclusion

    Therefore, time-limited tolerances are established for residues of
the fumigant methyl bromide, including its metabolites and degradates,
in or on specified agricultural imported/domestic commodities. These
tolerances expire on December 31, 2020.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA sections 408(e) and
408(l)(6). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these
types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled
``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993).
Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order
12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive
Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This
action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB
approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., nor does it require any special considerations under Executive
Order 12898, entitled ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR
7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established in accordance
with FFDCA sections 408(e) and 408(l)(6), such as the tolerances in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VIII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: February 13, 2018.
Donna S. Davis,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.124, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  [emsp14]180.124   Methyl bromide; tolerances for residues.

* * * * *
    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. Time-limited tolerances as
listed in the following table are established for residues of the
fumigant methyl bromide, including its metabolites and degradates, in
or on the specified agricultural commodities, resulting from use of the
pesticide pursuant to FIFRA section 18 emergency exemptions. Compliance
with the tolerance levels specified below is to be determined by
measuring only methyl bromide. These tolerances expire and are revoked
on the date indicated in the table.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Parts per
          Commodity               million           Expiration date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avocado.....................             5.0  December 31, 2020.
Banana......................             5.0  December 31, 2020.
Cactus......................             3.0  December 31, 2020.
Coconut, copra..............             8.0  December 31, 2020.

Coffee, green bean..........             150  December 31, 2020.
Cola........................             150  December 31, 2020.
Cucurbit, seed..............             150  December 31, 2020.
Fig.........................              10  December 31, 2020.
Fruit, berry and small                   5.0  December 31, 2020.
 fruit, group 13-07.
Fruit, stone, group 12-12...             5.0  December 31, 2020.
Herb and spice, group 19....              35  December 31, 2020.
Hibiscus, seed..............             150  December 31, 2020.
Ivy gourd...................             5.0  December 31, 2020.
Kaffir lime, leaves.........            0.50  December 31, 2020.
Kenaf, seed.................             150  December 31, 2020.
Longan......................             5.0  December 31, 2020.
Lychee......................             5.0  December 31, 2020.
Oilseed group 20............             150  December 31, 2020.
Peppermint, tops............              35  December 31, 2020.
Pointed gourd...............             5.0  December 31, 2020.
Pomegranate.................             5.0  December 31, 2020.
Rambutan....................             5.0  December 31, 2020.
Spanish lime................             5.0  December 31, 2020.
Spearmint, tops.............              35  December 31, 2020.
Stalk, stem and leaf petiole            0.50  December 31, 2020.
 vegetable group 22.
Tropical and subtropical                  10  December 31, 2020.
 fruits, edible peel, group
 23.
Tropical and subtropical                 5.0  December 31, 2020.
 fruits, inedible peel,
 group 24.
Vegetable, bulb, group 3-07.             2.0  December 31, 2020.
Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9             5.0  December 31, 2020.
Vegetable, foliage of                   0.50  December 31, 2020.
 legume, group 7.
Vegetable, fruiting, group 8-            7.0  December 31, 2020.
 10.
Vegetable, Head and Stem                 1.0  December 31, 2020.
 Brassica, group 5-16.
Vegetable, leafy, group 4-16            0.50  December 31, 2020.
Vegetable, leaves of root               0.50  December 31, 2020.
 and tuber, group 2.
Vegetable, legume, group 6..             3.0  December 31, 2020.
Vegetable, root and tuber,               3.0  December 31, 2020.
 group 1.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-04193 Filed 2-28-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


John Silvasi/RTP/USEPA/US
08/30/2006 01:30 PM	To
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>cc
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Scott Mathias/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Bill
Harnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Kimber Scavo/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
bcc
Jim Ketcham-Colwill; Sara Schneeberg; Kevin Mclean; Ragan
Tate/R6/USEPA/US@EPA; Rich Damberg/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA; Pam
Long/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA; Mary Henigin; Alan Rush; Paul
Balserak/DC/USEPA/US@EPA; Thomas Gillis
Subject
Updated analysis on EGU CAIR = RACT determination

		Hi, Amy,

		As we discussed earlier today, my management asked me to forward to you
the results of the re-analysis of the CAIR = RACT determination.  The
reconsideration FR notice itself is still being held at EPA prior to being
officially transmitted to OMB until we have clearer direction from our
management on how to proceed with it in light of this revised analysis.  I
have not yet revised the FR to account for this new analysis.

		John J. Silvasi
Environmental Engineer
State and Local Programs Group (C539-02)
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
919-541-5666 (v);<PHONE_NUMBER> (fax)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
"It is EPA’s goal to protect the environment for everyone.  You can help
by reporting potential environmental violations.  To do so, visit EPA’s
website at http://www.epa.gov/compliance/complaints/index.html "