[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 122 (Wednesday, June 24, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37960-37961]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13520]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2010-0038]

Rigging Equipment for Material Handling; Extension of the Office
of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection
(Paperwork) Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning the proposal to
extend the OMB approval of the information collection requirements
contained in the Standard on Rigging Equipment for Material Handling.
The Standard requires affixing identification tags or markings on
rigging equipment, developing and maintaining inspection records, and
retaining proof-testing certificates.

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
August 24, 2020.

ADDRESSES:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit a copy of your comments and
attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, OSHA Docket No. OSHA-2010-0038,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, Room N-3653, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210.
Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service) are
accepted during the Docket Office's normal business hours, 10:00 a.m.
to 3:00 p.m., ET.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and OSHA
docket number (OSHA-2010-0038) for the Information Collection Request
(ICR). All comments, including any personal information you provide,
such as social security numbers and date of birth, are placed in the
public docket without change, and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov. For further information on submitting
comments, see the ``Public Participation'' heading in the section of
this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the above address. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download from the website. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Theda Kenney at
the below address to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Theda Kenney or Seleda Perryman,
Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of the continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accord with the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that
information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs)
is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's
estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651
et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or
appropriate for enforcement of the OSH Act, or for developing
information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational
injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also
requires OSHA to obtain such information with minimum burden upon
employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce
to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in
obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657).
    Paragraph (b)(1) of the Standard 29 CFR 1926.251 requires that
alloy steel chains have permanently affixed, durable identification
tags stating size, grade, rated capacity, and sling manufacturer.
Paragraph (b)(6)(i)

requires the employer to make a thorough periodic inspection of alloy
steel chain slings in use on a regular basis, but at least once a year.
Paragraph (b)(6)(ii) requires the employer to make and maintain a
record of the most recent month in which each alloy steel chain was
inspected and make the record available for examination.
    Paragraph (c)(15)(ii) requires that all welded end attachments of
wire rope slings be proof tested by the manufacturer at twice their
rated capacity prior to initial use, and that the employer retain a
certificate of the proof test and make it available for examination.
    Paragraphs (e)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii) require that synthetic web
slings be marked or coded to show the manufacturer's name or trademark,
the rated capacity for the type of hitch, and the type of synthetic
webbing material.
    Paragraph (f)(2) requires that all hooks for which no applicable
manufacturer's recommendations are available be tested twice before
they are put into use. The employer shall maintain a record of the
dates and results of the tests.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must-comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    There is an adjustment decrease of 3,269 burden hours (from 52,428
hours to 49,159 hours). This decrease is a result of new data
indicating a decrease in the number of cranes and derricks from 122,091
to 115,829.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Rigging Equipment for Material Handling (29 CFR 1926.251).
    OMB Control Number: 1218-0233.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits.
    Number of Respondents: 115,829.
    Total Responses: 306,729.
    Frequency of Responses: On occasion.
    Average Time per Response: Average of 3 minutes (3/60 hour) for an
employer to maintain and disclose a certificate to 30 minutes (30/60
hour) for an employer to acquire information and make a tag for a
sling.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 49,159.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (fax); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the agency name
and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (OSHA Docket No. 2010-0038). You
may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by your name, date, and the docket number so the agency can attach them
to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>, (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information, such as social security numbers and
dates of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download through this
website. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available
for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on
using the http://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments and
access the docket is available at the website's ``User Tips'' link.
Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not
available through the website, and for assistance in using the internet
to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    Loren Sweatt, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this
notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012
(77 FR 3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on June 18, 2020.
Loren Sweatt,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety
and Health.
[FR Doc. 2020-13520 Filed 6-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 73 (Monday, April 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16404-16405]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07784]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    Upon Written Request Copies Available From: U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549-2736.

Extension: Supplier Diversity Business Management System.
    SEC File No. 270-663, OMB Control No. 3235-0724.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(``OMB'') a request for extension of the previously approved collection
of information summarized below.
    The Commission is required under Section 342 of the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street and Reform Act to develop standards and processes for ensuring
the fair inclusion of women-owned and minority-owned businesses in all
of the Commission's business activities. To help implement this
requirement, the Office of Minority and Women Inclusion (OMWI)
developed and maintains an electronic Supplier Diversity Business
Management System (the System) to collect up-to-date business
information and capabilities statements from diverse suppliers
interested in doing business with the Commission. This information
allows the Commission to update and more effectively manage its current
internal repository. It also allows the Commission to measure the
effectiveness of its technical assistance and outreach efforts, and
target areas where additional program efforts are necessary.
    The Commission invites comment on the System. Information is
collected in the System via web-based, e-filed, dynamic form-based
technology. The company point of contact completes a profile consisting
of basic contact data and information on the capabilities of the
business. The profile includes a series of questions, some of which are
based on the data that the individual enters. Drop-down lists are
included where appropriate to increase ease of use.
    The information collection is voluntary. There are no costs
associated with this collection. The System allows suppliers to self-
register via a secure web portal that is accessible through a hyperlink
on the Commission's public website. The form also is accessible via a
web-link generated and emailed to the suppliers by the System.

Estimated number of annual responses = 300
Estimated annual reporting burden = 150 hours (30 minutes per
submission)

    Since the last approval of this information collection, we have
adjusted the estimated number of respondents from 500 to 300
respondents per year, based on the actual response rate for the past
two years and anticipated increase in that response rate with the
posting of a link to the System on our web page to allow self-
registration. This reduction in the number of respondents has resulted
in a 100-hour reduction in the total burden estimate.
    On February 2, 2018, the Commission published a notice in the
Federal Register (83 FR 4936) of its intention to request extension of
this currently approved collection of information, and allowed the
public 60 days to submit comments. The Commission received no comments.
    Written comments continued to be invited on: (a) Whether this
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following website, www.reginfo.gov.
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to:
Shagufta[email protected]; and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email
to: [email protected]. Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30
days of this notice.

    Dated: April 9, 2018.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-07784 Filed 4-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 82)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 22787-22789]
[DOCID:fr28ap08-3]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2006-25983; Directorate Identifier 2006-SW-11-AD;
Amendment 39-15463; AD 2008-08-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; MD Helicopters, Inc. Model MD900 Series
Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
MD Helicopters, Inc. (MDHI) Model MD900 series helicopters that
requires modifying the pilot and co-pilot dual-control directional
pedal assemblies, or the pilot single-control directional pedal
assembly (directional control pedal assembly). This amendment is
prompted by an accident which has been attributed to loss of
directional control due to failure of the welds in the directional
control pedal assembly. The actions specified by this AD are intended
to prevent fatigue cracking in the welds that connect the directional
control pedal to the pedal shaft, resulting in loss of directional
control and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES: Effective June 2, 2008.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of June 2, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may get the service information identified in this AD
from MD Helicopters, Inc., Attn: Customer Support Division, 4555 E.
McDowell Rd., Mail Stop M615, Mesa, Arizona 85215-9734, telephone 1-
800-388-3378, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, or on the Web at http://
www.mdhelicopters.com.
    Examining the Docket: You may examine the docket that contains this
AD, any comments, and other information on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov or at the Docket Operations office, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roger Durbin, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, Airframe
Branch, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, California 90712, telephone
(562) 627-5233, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend 14 CFR part 39 to
include an AD for the specified model helicopters was published in the
Federal Register on October 17, 2006 (71 FR 60927). That action
proposed to require, for MDHI Model MD900 series helicopters, serial
numbers (S/N) 900-00008 through 900-00111, 900-00113, and 900-00114,
modifying the directional control pedal assembly, part number (P/N)
900C1012007-107, -109, -111, -113, or 900C6012007-111 (pilot dual
control); or P/N 900C1012207-105, -107, -109, -111, or -113 (co-pilot
dual control); or P/N 900C1010007-107, -109, -111, -113, or
900C6010007-111

(pilot single control), by removing the existing pedals, removing the
welded pedal support plate from the pedal shafts, and installing a
directional control pedal modification kit, P/N SBK-010. Ink stamping
the P/N,<PHONE_NUMBER>1-101, on the pedal shaft of each modified
directional control pedal assembly using permanent ink was also
proposed.
    MDHI has issued Service Bulletin SB900-100, dated April 5, 2006,
which describes procedures for modifying the directional control pedal
assembly.
    Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to
the comments received.
    The one commenter, the Modification and Replacement Parts
Association, ``does not object to the TC holder provided modification
kits provided at no cost to operators'' and states that ``Such action
removes any incentive for the development of alternative parts under 14
CFR 21.303.'' They also note that the cost impact stated in the AD is
$61,650 per helicopter, but should correctly be stated as $61,650 for
the entire U.S. fleet of MDHI MD900 helicopters. The FAA concurs and
has corrected that error in this AD.
    After careful review of the available data, including the comments
noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public
interest require the adoption of the rule with the change described
previously. The FAA has determined that this change will neither
increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of
the AD.
    The FAA estimates that this AD will affect 30 helicopters of U.S.
registry, and the required actions will take approximately 8 work hours
for helicopters with single pilot controls installed, or 16 work hours
for helicopters with dual pilot and co-pilot controls installed, at an
average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts will cost
approximately $775 for helicopters with dual pilot and co-pilot
controls installed. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost
impact of the AD on U.S. operators to be $61,650 for the entire fleet,
or $2,055 per helicopter, assuming that dual pilot and co-pilot
controls are installed on the entire fleet and there is no warranty
coverage.

Regulatory Findings

    We have 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 the regulation:
    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); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this AD. See the AD docket to examine the economic evaluation.

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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (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. Section 39.13 is amended by adding a new airworthiness directive to
read as follows:

2008-08-11 MD Helicopters, Inc.: Amendment 39-15463. Docket No. FAA-
2006-25983; Directorate Identifier 2006-SW-11-AD.

Applicability

    Model MD900 series helicopters, serial numbers (S/N) 900-00008
through 900-00111, 900-00113, and 900-00114, certificated in any
category.

Compliance

    Required within 90 days after the effective date of this AD,
unless accomplished previously.
    To prevent fatigue cracking in the welds which connect the pilot
and co-pilot dual-control, or pilot single-control directional
control pedal (directional control pedal) to the pedal shaft,
resulting in loss of directional control and subsequent loss of
control of the helicopter, accomplish the following:
    (a) Modify each directional control pedal assembly, part number
(P/N) 900C1012007-107, -109, -111, -113, or 900C6012007-111 (pilot
dual control); or P/N 900C1012207-105, -107, -109, -111, or -113
(co-pilot dual control); or P/N 900C1010007-107, -109, -111, -113,
or 900C6010007-111 (pilot single control), by removing the existing
pedals, removing the welded pedal support plate from the pedal
shafts, and installing a directional control pedal modification kit,
P/N SBK-010, in accordance with part 2, Accomplishment Instructions,
in MD Helicopters Service Bulletin SB900-100, dated April 5, 2006.
One modification kit is required to be installed on helicopters with
single controls and two modification kits are required to be
installed on helicopters with dual controls.
    (b) Using a permanent ink, ink stamp the P/N,<PHONE_NUMBER>1-101,
on the pedal shaft of each modified directional control pedal
assembly.
    (c) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Contact the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,
ATTN: Roger Durbin, Airframe Branch, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood,
California 90712, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for
information about previously approved alternative methods of
compliance.
    (d) The modification shall be done in accordance with the
specified portions of MD Helicopters Service Bulletin SB900-100,
dated April 5, 2006. The Director of the Federal Register approved
this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)
and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from MD Helicopters, Inc.,
Attn: Customer Support Division, 4555 E. McDowell Rd., Mail Stop
M615, Mesa, Arizona 85215-9734, telephone 1-800-388-3378, fax 480-
346-6813. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Office of the Regional
Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth,
Texas, or 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/

code--of--federal--regulations/ibr--locations.html.
    (e) This amendment becomes effective on June 2, 2008.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on April 3, 2008.
Mark R. Schilling,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E8-8638 Filed 4-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 8, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20037-20042]
[FR Doc No: 2019-09377]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0532; FRL-9990-60]

Cyflumetofen; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of the
insecticide cyflumetofen in or on tea, dried. OAT Agrio. Ltd., Tokyo,
Japan c/o Landis International, Inc. requested these tolerances under
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective May 8, 2019. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before July 8, 2019 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-2017-0532, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael L. Goodis, P.E., Director,
Registration Division (750P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460-0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0532 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
July 8, 2019. 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-2017-0532, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional
instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of December 15, 2017 (82 FR 59604) (FRL-
9970-50), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
7E8609) by OAT Agrio. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan, c/o Landis International,
Inc., 3185 Madison Highway, P.O. Box 5126, Valdosta,

Georgia 31603-5126. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.677 be
amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide
cyflumetofen, (2-methoxyethyl [alpha]-cyano-[alpha]-[4-(1,1-
dimethylethyl)phenyl]-[beta]-oxo-2-(trifluoromethyl)benzenepropanoate),
in or on tea at 40 parts per million (ppm). That document referenced a
summary of the petition prepared by OAT Agrio. Ltd. c/o Landis
International, Inc., the registrant, which is available in the docket,
http://www.regulations.gov. These tolerances were requested to cover
residues of cyflumetofen in or on tea resulting from use of this
pesticide on tea outside the United States. There is no current U.S.
registration for use of cyflumetofen on tea. Four comments were
submitted to the docket concerning issues outside the scope of this
rulemaking.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the referenced petition,
EPA is establishing a tolerance for residues of cyflumetofen on tea,
dried.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    Cyflumetofen has a low acute toxicity via the acute oral, dermal,
and inhalation routes of exposure. It is minimally irritating to the
eyes but not to the skin. Cyflumetofen is a skin sensitizer. The major
target organ in rats, mice, and dogs following short- and long-term
oral administration of cyflumetofen is the adrenal glands characterized
by increased organ weight and histopathology (vacuolation and
hypertrophy of the adrenal cortical cells).
    There is no evidence of increased qualitative or quantitative
susceptibility in the rat 2-generation reproduction study; however, the
rat and rabbit developmental studies indicate susceptibility in the
pups. There is evidence of increased quantitative susceptibility in the
rabbit developmental toxicity study, since developmental effects at the
limit dose were observed where no maternal toxicity was present. There
is evidence of increased qualitative susceptibility in the rat
developmental toxicity study as developmental effects were seen at the
same dose that caused an increase in adrenal weights and organ-to-body
weight ratio in the maternal animals.
    There is no evidence of neurotoxicity in any of the submitted
studies for cyflumetofen.
    Cyflumetofen has been classified as having ``Suggestive Evidence of
Carcinogenic Potential'' in accordance with the EPA's Final Guidelines
for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (March 2005). This classification is
based on the presence of a single tumor type (thyroid c-cell) in one
sex (male) and one species (rat), and the lack of concern for
mutagenicity. When there is suggestive evidence of carcinogenicity, the
Agency does not attempt a dose-response assessment as the nature of the
data generally would not support one. Therefore, the Agency has
determined that quantification of risk using a non-linear approach
(i.e., the chronic reference dose) will adequately protect for all
chronic toxicity, including carcinogenicity, likely to result from
exposure to cyflumetofen.
    More detailed information on the studies received and the nature of
the adverse effects caused by cyflumetofen as well as the NOAEL and the
LOAEL from the toxicological studies can be found in the document
entitled, ``Cyflumetofen. Human Health Risk Assessment to Support New
Uses on Imported Tea,'' dated March 4, 2019, by going to http://www.regulations.gov. The referenced document is available in the docket
established by this action, which is described under ADDRESSES. Locate
and click on the hyperlink for docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0532.
Double-click on the document to view the referenced information.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for cyflumetofen used for
human risk assessment is shown in the Table of this unit.

  Table --Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Cyflumetofen 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 (All Populations)..  An acute RfD has not been established for either the general U.S. population
                                    or for females 13-49 years of age since there were no appropriate studies
                                    that demonstrated evidence of toxicity attributable to a single dose for
                                    these populations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary (All Populations)  NOAEL = 16.5 mg/kg/   Chronic RfD = 0.17   Three co-critical studies:
                                    day.                  mg/kg/day.          90-Day Feeding Study in Rats.
                                   UFA = 10x...........  cPAD = 0.17 mg/kg/    LOAEL = 1,000 ppm (54.5/62.8 mg/
                                   UFH = 10x...........   day.                 kg/day in males/females) based on
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........                        hematology and organ weight
                                                                               changes in the liver, adrenal,
                                                                               kidney and ovaries; and
                                                                               histopathology effects in the
                                                                               adrenals and the ovaries. NOAEL =
                                                                               300 ppm (16.5/19 mg/kg/day in
                                                                               males/females).
                                                                              Chronic Toxicity/Carcinogenicity
                                                                               Study in Rats. LOAEL = 1,500 ppm
                                                                               (49.5/61.9 mg/kg/day in males/
                                                                               females) based on increased
                                                                               adrenal weights and
                                                                               histopathology. NOAEL = 500 ppm
                                                                               (16.5/20.3 mg/kg/day in males/
                                                                               females).
                                                                              Two-Generation Reproduction Study
                                                                               in Rats. Parental: LOAEL = 500
                                                                               ppm (30.6/46.6 mg/kg/day in males/
                                                                               females) based on increased organ
                                                                               weight and histopathology in
                                                                               adrenals. NOAEL = 150 ppm (9.2/
                                                                               13.8 mg/kg/day in males/females).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adult and Incidental Oral (Short-  NOAEL = 16.5 mg/kg/   LOC for MOE = <100.  Same as chronic dietary endpoint.
 and Intermediate-Term).            day.
                                   UFA = 10x...........
                                   UFH = 10x...........
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dermal (Short- and Intermediate-   No dermal hazard was identified. No appropriate endpoint was selected for
 Term).                             risk assessment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inhalation (Short- and             NOAEL = 16.5 mg/kg/   Occupational and     Same as chronic dietary endpoint.
 Intermediate-Term).                day.                  Residential LOC
                                   UFA = 10x...........   for MOE = <100.
                                   UFH = 10x...........
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, Dermal, and          Classification: ``Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenic Potential.''
 Inhalation).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point of Departure (POD) = A data point or an estimated point that is derived from observed dose-response data
  and used to mark the beginning of extrapolation to determine risk associated with lower environmentally
  relevant human exposures. NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level. LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect
  level. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential
  variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies). FQPA SF = Food Quality
  Protection Act Safety Factor. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose.
  MOE = margin of exposure. LOC = level of concern. N/A = not applicable.

    More detailed information on the toxicological endpoints for
cyflumetofen can be found in the document entitled, ``Cyflumetofen.
Human Health Risk Assessment to Support New Uses on Imported Tea,''
dated March 4, 2019, by going to http://www.regulations.gov. The
referenced document is available in the docket established by this
action, which is described under ADDRESSES. Locate and click on the
hyperlink for docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0532. Double-click on
the document to view the referenced information.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to cyflumetofen, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing cyflumetofen tolerances in 40
CFR 180.677. EPA assessed dietary exposures from cyflumetofen in food
as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. No acute dietary exposure and risk analysis was
performed since there were no appropriate studies identified in the
toxicology database that demonstrated evidence of toxicity attributable
to a single dose.
    ii. Chronic exposure. An unrefined chronic dietary analysis was
conducted that was based on tolerance-level residues, 100% crop treated
(%CT) assumptions, and empirical processing estimates when available or
DEEM\TM\ processing factors. Using assumptions considered to be highly
protective, the estimated dietary risks ranged from <1% of the cPAD for
the general U.S. population to 2.4% of the cPAD for the highest exposed
population subgroup of children 1-2 years old. The Agency's LOC is
<100% cPAD.
    iii. Cancer. As explained in unit III.A., quantification of risk
using a non-linear approach (i.e., a cPAD) will adequately account for
all chronic toxicity, including carcinogenicity, that could result from
exposure to cyflumetofen.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue information in the dietary
assessment for cyflumetofen. Tolerance-level residues and/or 100% CT
were assumed for all food commodities.
    More detailed information on the acute and chronic dietary (food
only) exposure and risk assessment for cyflumetofen can be found in the
document entitled, ``Cyflumetofen. Human Health Risk Assessment to
Support New Uses on Imported Tea,'' dated March 4, 2019, by going to
http://www.regulations.gov. The referenced document is available in the
docket established by this action, which is described under ADDRESSES.
Locate and click on the hyperlink for docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-
0532. Double-click on the document to view the referenced information.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for cyflumetofen in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of cyflumetofen. 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 estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) previously used
in the dietary risk assessment were incorporated directly into this
dietary assessment. The Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis
Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) simulations of a NY grapes scenario
produced the highest surface-water EDWCs (0.33 ppb for chronic dietary
exposure) and an updated EDWC was not required for this assessment
since the proposed use on imported tea will not impact the previously
provided estimates.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 0.33 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water.
    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). The registered uses
of cyflumetofen on ornamentals may result in adult residential handler
and post-application exposure. This exposure is expected to be only
short-term in duration (i.e., 1 to 30 days) as intermediate- or long-
term exposures are not likely based on the intermittent nature of
applications by homeowners. Since no dermal hazard was identified for
cyflumetofen in the toxicological database, only inhalation exposure
assessments were conducted. The resulting inhalation margins of
exposure (MOEs) for all scenarios are not of concern since they are
above the level of concern (LOC) of 100 (MOEs >=100). Based on the
registered use pattern, exposure to children in residential settings is
not anticipated. 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 cyflumetofen to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and cyflumetofen does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
cyflumetofen does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality
Protection Act Safety Factor (FQPA SF). In applying this provision, EPA
either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional
safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of
a different factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is no evidence of
increased qualitative or quantitative susceptibility in the rat 2-
generation reproduction study; however, the rat and rabbit
developmental studies indicate susceptibility in the pups. There is
evidence of increased quantitative susceptibility in the rabbit
developmental toxicity study, since developmental effects (changes in
ossicification, paw flexion, and decreased fetal body weights) at the
limit dose were observed where no maternal toxicity was present. There
is evidence of increased qualitative susceptibility in the rat
developmental toxicity study as developmental effects (increased
incidence of incompletely ossified sternal centra) were seen at the
same dose that caused an increase in adrenal weights and organ-to-body
weight ratio in the maternal animals. Notwithstanding, the degree of
concern for these effects in infants and children is low because the
rat and rabbit developmental effects have clearly defined NOAEL/LOAELs
and the dose selected for chronic risk assessment is protective of
these effects. Therefore, the PODs based on adrenal effects in rat are
health protective of all life stages.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for cyflumetofen is complete and adequate
to characterize potential pre- and/or post-natal risk for infants and
children.
    ii. There are acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies available.
There is no indication that cyflumetofen is a neurotoxic chemical in
any of the submitted studies for cyflumetofen, and there is no need for
a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for
neurotoxicity.
    iii. While there is evidence of increased susceptibility in the
rabbit and rat developmental studies, these studies have clearly
defined NOAEL/LOAELs based on the explanation in Unit III.D.2. above.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
database. Since the dietary and residential exposure estimates were
based on conservative assumptions, EPA is confident that this
assessment does not underestimate dietary (food and water) or
residential exposure.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate dietary risk assessment takes
into account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food
and drinking water. No acute dietary exposure and risk analysis was
performed since there were no appropriate studies identified in the
toxicology database that demonstrated evidence of toxicity attributable
to a single dose.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in the
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
cyflumetofen from food and water will utilize 2.4% of the cPAD for
children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding
residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of
cyflumetofen is not expected.

    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Cyflumetofen
is currently registered for use on ornamentals that result in
residential handler exposure. Residential handler exposure is expected
to be short-term in duration as intermediate- or long-term exposures
are not likely because of the intermittent nature of applications by
homeowners, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to
aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with short-term
residential exposures to cyflumetofen.
    Since no dermal hazard was identified for cyflumetofen in the
toxicological database, only inhalation exposure assessments were
conducted for residential handlers. The most conservative residential
exposure scenario was chosen for the adult population which reflects
inhalation exposure from mixing/loading/applying the liquid
cyflumetofen formulation with a backpack sprayer. For background
dietary exposure, the adult sub-population with the highest exposure
(adults 50-99) was chosen since this is protective for all other adult
sub-populations. There are no residential exposures expected for
children; therefore, a short-term aggregate risk assessment for
children is equal to the chronic food and drinking water exposure and
risk estimates and is not of concern. Using the exposure assumptions
described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the
combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in
aggregate MOEs above the LOC of 100 for all scenarios assessed and are
not of concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level). An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however,
cyflumetofen is not registered for any use patterns that would result
in intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term risk is
assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term residential
exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under
the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as
the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no further assessment
of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic
dietary risk assessment for evaluating intermediate-term risk for
cyflumetofen.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. As discussed in Unit
III.A., EPA concluded that the nonlinear approach for assessing
potential cancer risk from exposure to cyflumetofen is appropriate. As
noted in this Unit, the chronic risk aggregate exposure to cyflumetofen
is below the Agency's level of concern; therefore, the Agency concludes
that there is not a cancer risk of concern from exposure to
cyflumetofen.
    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 cyflumetofen residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An adequate enforcement methodology is available to enforce the
HED-recommended tolerances for cyflumetofen in plant commodities. The
high-performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry
(HPLC-MS/MS) method has been adequately validated, has undergone a
successful ILV (independent laboratory validation), is considered
adequately radio-validated and has been reviewed by the Agency for
appropriateness as an enforcement method. The method limit of detection
(LOD) for residues of cyflumetofen in tea is 0.01 ppm. Cyflumetofen has
also been subjected to analysis by the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) multi-residue method (MRM) protocols. Cyflumetofen is not
adequately recovered through any of the FDA multi-residue protocols.
    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    Codex has not established maximum residue limits (MRLs) for
residues of cyflumetofen in tea commodities; therefore, there are no
harmonization issues.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    To conform with to the Agency's preferred commodity vocabulary, EPA
is establishing the tolerance for tea on ``tea, dried'', which will
cover residues on all tea commodities.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, a tolerance is established for residues of the
insecticide cyflumetofen, (2-methoxyethyl [alpha]-cyano-[alpha]-[4-
(1,1-dimethylethyl)phenyl]-[beta]-oxo-2-
(trifluoromethyl)benzenepropanoate), in or on tea at 40 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), nor is considered a regulatory
action under Executive Order 13771, entitled ``Reducing Regulations and
Controlling Regulatory Costs'' (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017). This
action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB
approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.), nor does it require any special considerations under Executive
Order 12898, entitled ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income

Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: April 26, 2019.
Donna 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.  180.677, add alphabetically the commodity ``tea, dried'' to
the table in paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  180.677   Cyflumetofen; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Parts per
                          Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Tea, dried \1\..............................................          40

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no U.S. registrations for this commodity as of May 8,
  2019.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-09377 Filed 5-7-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on November 9, 2004

   NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-98-4929

________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of    Continental Airlines, Inc.        filed   9/17/04  to:

XX  Renew for two years exemption under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the
following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between a point or points in the United States and Budapest, Hungary.

Applicant rep:   R. Bruce Keiner, Jr.<PHONE_NUMBER>   DOT Analyst:
Sylvia Moore<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted

The above action was effective when taken:  November 9, 2004, through
November 9, 2006

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		    Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement
between the United States and

Hungary.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:  XX Holder’s
certificates of public convenience and necessity

	   XX  Standard exemption conditions (attached)

________________________________________________________________________
______________

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department's regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the exemption authority was consistent with the
public interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a
major regulatory action under the Energy, Policy and Conservation Act of
1975.  To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the
referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

(See Reverse Side)

2

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1544.
To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing any new service
(including charter flights) to or from a foreign airport, contact its
International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise the IPSI of
its plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security
Administration has determined that security is adequate to allow such
airport(s) to be served; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

									  05/2004

 Continental states that it needs this authority in order to obtain
commercial rights under the U.S.-Hungary Air Transport Agreement to sell
airline tickets in Hungary and to convert and remit revenues there.
Continental does not currently plan to initiate its own U.S.-Hungary
services at this time.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 13 (Friday, January 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4182-4184]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00969]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68650; File No. SR-FINRA-2013-001]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
Proposed Rule Change To Update Cross-References and Make Other Non-
Substantive Changes Within FINRA Rules and By-Laws

January 14, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on January 3, 2013, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. FINRA has
designated the proposed rule change as constituting a ``non-
controversial'' rule change under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \4\ thereunder, which renders the proposal
effective upon receipt of this filing by the Commission. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    FINRA is proposing to update cross-references and make other non-
substantive changes within certain FINRA rules and By-Laws, primarily
as the result of approval of new consolidated FINRA rules.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, FINRA included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    FINRA is in the process of developing a consolidated rulebook
(``Consolidated FINRA Rulebook'').\5\ That process involves FINRA
submitting to the Commission for approval a series of proposed rule
changes over time to adopt rules in the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook.
The phased adoption and implementation of those rules necessitates
periodic amendments to update rule cross-references and other non-
substantive changes in the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The current FINRA rulebook consists of (1) FINRA Rules; (2)
NASD Rules; and (3) rules incorporated from NYSE (``Incorporated
NYSE Rules'') (together, the NASD Rules and Incorporated NYSE Rules
are referred to as the ``Transitional Rulebook''). While the NASD
Rules generally apply to all FINRA members, the Incorporated NYSE
Rules apply only to those members of FINRA that are also members of
the NYSE (``Dual Members''). The FINRA Rules apply to all FINRA
members, unless such rules have a more limited application by their
terms. For more information about the rulebook consolidation
process, see Information Notice, March 12, 2008 (Rulebook
Consolidation Process).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would make several such changes, as well
as certain other non-substantive changes unrelated to the adoption of
rules in the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook. First, the proposed rule
change would update rule cross-references and make other non-
substantive changes to reflect the adoption of new consolidated FINRA
communications with the public rules. On March 29, 2012, the SEC
approved a proposed rule change to adopt NASD Rules 2210 and 2211 and
NASD Interpretive Materials 2210-1 and 2210-3 through 2210-8 as FINRA
Rules 2210 and 2212 through 2216, with several

changes.\6\ The new rules will be implemented on February 4, 2013. As
such, the proposed rule change would update references to the new rule
numbers in FINRA Rules 0150 (Application of Rules to Exempted
Securities Except Municipal Securities), 2111 (Suitability), 2220
(Options Communications), 6630 (Applicability of FINRA Rules to
Securities Previously Designated as PORTAL Securities), 9217
(Violations Appropriate for Disposition Under Plan Pursuant to SEA Rule
19d-1(c)(2)), 9551 (Failure to Comply with Public Communication
Standards) and 9610 (Application).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66681 (March 29,
2012), 77 FR 20452 (April 4, 2012) (Order Approving File No. SR-
FINRA-2011-035).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the proposed rule change similarly would update the rule
references in FINRA Rules 2214 (Requirements for the Use of Investment
Analysis Tools) and 9610 as the result of adoption of new consolidated
FINRA Rules 2111 (Suitability) and 5123 (Private Placement of
Securities), respectively.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63325 (November 17,
2010), 75 FR 71479 (November 23, 2010) (Order Approving File No. SR-
FINRA-2010-039); and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67157 (June
7, 2012), 77 FR 35457 (June 13, 2012) (Order Approving File No. SR-
FINRA-2011-057).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, the proposed rule change would make additional non-
substantive changes as a result of new definitions in FINRA Rule
2210.\8\ That rule combines the current definitions of ``sales
literature,'' ``advertisement'' and ``independently prepared reprint''
into a single category of ``retail communications.'' Accordingly, the
proposed rule change makes corresponding changes in the rulebook where
the current terms are used: Section 13, Schedule A to the FINRA By-Laws
(Review Charge for Communications Filed or Submitted), FINRA Rules 2130
(Approval Procedures for Day-Trading Accounts), 2220 (Options
Communications),\9\ 2270 (Day-Trading Risk Disclosure Statement), 3160
(Networking Arrangements Between Members and Financial Institutions)
and NASD Rule 3010 (Supervision).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66681 (March 29,
2012), 77 FR 20452 (April 4, 2012) (Order Approving File No. SR-
FINRA-2011-035).
    \9\ New FINRA Rule 2210(a)(2) defines ``correspondence'' as any
written (including electronic) communication that is distributed or
made available to 25 or fewer retail investors within any 30
calendar-day period. The proposed change to Rule 2220(b) would
delete the requirement for principal approval for correspondence
that is distributed to 25 or more existing retail customers within a
30 calendar-day period that makes any financial or investment
recommendation or otherwise promotes the product or service of a
member. Under the new communications with the public rule,
communications distributed to more than 25 retail investors within
any 30 calendar-day period that include such recommendations or
promotions would be considered retail communications and therefore
subject to the principal approval requirement. As such, the proposed
change to Rule 2210(b) does not substantively change the scope of
options communications that would require principal approval.
    \10\ FINRA Rules 2130 and 2270 impose approval procedures and
disclosure requirements, respectively, on a member that is
``promoting a day-trading strategy.'' For purposes of the rules, a
member shall be deemed to be ``promoting a day trading strategy'' if
``* * * it affirmatively endorses a `day trading strategy,' as
defined in [the Rules] through advertising, its Web site, trading
seminars or direct outreach programs. For example, a member
generally shall be deemed to be `promoting a day-trading strategy'
if its advertisements address the benefits of day trading, rapid
fire trading, or momentum trading, or encourage persons to trade or
profit like a professional trader.'' The proposed rule change would
change ``advertisements'' in the example provided to ``retail
communications.'' FINRA believes that any member that currently uses
sales literature or independently prepared reprints to promote day
trading would be subject to the existing rule, and thus the change
would not expand the scope of the rule. In addition, Rules 2130 and
2270 both provide that members may submit advertisements to FINRA's
Advertising Department for guidance on whether the content
constitutes ``promoting a day-trading strategy.'' FINRA believes it
consistent with the changes to the communications with the public
rules to allow members to now submit ``retail communications'' for
such guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fourth, the proposed rule change would make technical changes to
FINRA Rules 2210 (Communications with the Public) and 4210 (Margin
Requirements) to reflect FINRA Manual style convention changes and
FINRA Rule 3230 (Telemarketing) to reflect changes adopted in a recent
FINRA proposed rule change regarding telemarketing.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66279 (January 30,
2012), 77 FR 5611 (February 3, 2012) (Order Approving File No. SR-
FINRA-2011-059).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, FINRA is proposing to make non-substantive changes to
certain other rules. FINRA is proposing to delete paragraph (c)
(Aggregate Volume Match) of FINRA Rules 7240A and 7340 (Trade Report
Processing) relating to the FINRA/Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility
(``FINRA/Nasdaq TRF'') and OTC Reporting Facility (``ORF''),
respectively. The aggregate volume match functionality was eliminated
when the facilities were migrated to a new operating platform in 2007,
but the rules were inadvertently not updated to reflect the system
changes. In addition, FINRA is proposing to re-designate paragraph (d)
of FINRA Rules 7240A and 7340 as paragraph (c), and to replace the
reference to 5:15 p.m. with 8:00 p.m. in this paragraph. The reference
to 5:15 p.m. was inadvertently not amended when the system closing time
for the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF and ORF was extended to 8:00 p.m. in 2006.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54772 (November 17,
2006), 71 FR 68665 (November 27, 2006) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of File No. SR-NASD-2006-120).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness. The implementation date for the proposed rule change
will be February 4, 2013.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\13\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. FINRA believes the proposed rule change will provide
greater clarity to members and the public regarding FINRA's rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change brings
clarity and consistency to FINRA rules without adding any burden on
firms.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \14\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of

the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2013-001 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2013-001. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2013-001 and should be
submitted on or before February 8, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-00969 Filed 1-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 174 (Thursday, September 8, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55776-55777]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22833]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0798-201147; FRL-9459-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and
Designations of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Georgia: Rome;
Determination of Attainment by Applicable Attainment Date for the 1997
Annual Fine Particulate Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is determining that the Rome, Georgia, fine particulate
(PM2.5) nonattainment area (hereafter referred to as ``the
Rome Area'') has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) by the applicable attainment date
of April 5, 2010. The determination of attainment was previously
finalized by EPA on April 5, 2011, and was based on quality-assured and
certified monitoring data for the 2007-2009 monitoring period. The Rome
Area is comprised of Floyd County, Georgia, in its entirety. EPA is
determining that the Area attained the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS by its applicable attainment date. EPA is finalizing this action
because it is consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA) and its
implementing regulations.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on October 11,
2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0798. All documents in the docket are listed in
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for public inspection during normal
business hours at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joel Huey or Sara Waterson, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Huey's telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Mr. Huey can also be reached via electronic
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Ms. Waterson may be reached by phone at
(404) 562-9061 or via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What action is EPA taking?
II. EPA's Response to Comment
III. What is the effect of this action?
IV. What is EPA's final action?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA taking?

    Based on EPA's review of the quality-assured and certified
monitoring data for 2007-2009, and in accordance with section 179(c)(1)
of the CAA and EPA's regulations, EPA is determining that the Rome Area
attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date of April 5, 2010.
    On April 5, 2011, EPA published a final rulemaking to make a
determination of attainment and to suspend the requirements for the
Rome Area to submit an attainment demonstration and associated
reasonably available control measures (RACM), reasonable further
progress (RFP) plan, contingency measures, and other planning State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions related to attainment of the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS so long as the Area continues to attain
the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. See 76 FR 18650. That final
rulemaking also includes useful background information on the
PM2.5 NAAQS relevant to the Rome Area. Today's action makes
a determination that the Rome Area attained the1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of April 5,
2010. Today's action is simply focused on the date by which the Area
had attaining data.
    Other specific requirements of the determination and the rationale
for EPA's action are explained in the notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPR) published on June 2, 2011 (76 FR 31898). The comment period
closed on July 5, 2011. One comment was received in response to the
NPR.

II. EPA's Response to Comment

    EPA received one comment on the June 2, 2011, proposed rulemaking
to determine the Rome Area attained the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by
its applicable attainment date of April 5, 2010. The comment, from the
Labor-Management Standards Office, is provided in the docket for this
final action and can be accessed at http://www.regulations.gov using
Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0798. The Commenter stated, ``[n]o more
rules.'' The comment provides insufficient information upon which to
base a response. As a point of clarification, today's action is
required by section 179(c)(1) of the CAA. For that reason, this
rulemaking is both necessary and appropriate.

III. What is the effect of this action?

    Today's action is a determination that the Rome Area attained the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by its applicable attainment date of
April 5, 2010, consistent with CAA section 179(c)(1). Finalizing this
action does not constitute a redesignation of the Rome Area to
attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS under section
107(d)(3) of the CAA. Further, finalizing this action does not involve
approving maintenance plans for the Rome Area as required under section
175A of the CAA, nor does it involve a determination that the Rome Area
has met all requirements for a redesignation. The designation status of
the Rome Area remains nonattainment for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS until such time as EPA determines that the Area
meets the CAA requirements for redesignation to attainment and takes
formal action to redesignate the Area.

IV. What is EPA's final action?

    EPA is determining, based on quality-assured and certified
monitoring data for the 2007-2009 monitoring period, that the Rome Area
attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date of April 5, 2010. This action is being taken pursuant
to section 179(c)(1) of the CAA and is consistent with the CAA and its
implementing regulations.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action makes a determination of attainment based on air
quality and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this determination that the Rome Area attained the
1997 annual average PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order
13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved
to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by November 7, 2011. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of these final rules does not
affect the finality of these actions for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 18, 2011.
Beverly H. Banister,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart L--Georgia

0
2. Section 52.577 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.577  Determination of attainment.

* * * * *
    (c) Based upon EPA's review of the air quality data for the 3-year
period 2007-2009, EPA determined that the Rome, Georgia
PM2.5 nonattainment area attained the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of April 5,
2010. Therefore, EPA has met the requirement pursuant to CAA section
179(c) to determine, based on the Area's air quality as of the
attainment date, whether the Area attained the standard. EPA also
determined that the Rome, Georgia PM2.5 nonattainment area
is not subject to the consequences of failing to attain pursuant to
section 179(d).

[FR Doc. 2011-22833 Filed 9-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P