[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 231 (Tuesday, December 1, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76958-76960]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26439]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0701; Airspace Docket No. 20-ASO-19]
RIN 2120-AA66

Establishment of Class D and Class E Airspace and Amendment of
Class E Airspace; Nashville, TN

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class D and Class E airspace
designated as an extension to Class D or E surface area, and amends
Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for
John C. Tune Airport, Nashville, TN, as a new air traffic control tower
shall service the airport. This action also updates the geographic
coordinates of the airport, as well as Music City Executive Airport,
(formerly Sumner County Regional Airport), Lebanon Municipal Airport,
and Murfreesboro Municipal Airport. In addition, this action
establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface for Vanderbilt University Hospital Heliport, as instrument
approach procedures have been designed for the heliport. Controlled
airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument
flight rules (IFR) operations in the area.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, June 17, 2021. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1
Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; Telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11E at NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701
Columbia Ave., College Park, GA 30337; Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rule regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends Class E airspace in Nashville, TN to support IFR
operations in the area.

History

    The FAA published a notice of prosed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (85 FR 55627, September 9, 2020) for Docket No. FAA-2020-0701
to establish Class D and Class E airspace designated as an extension to
Class D airspace for John C. Tune Airport, Nashville, TN, as a new air
traffic control tower shall service the airport. Also, the FAA proposed
to increase the existing Class E airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface, and update the geographic coordinates of
several airports in the area. In addition, the FAA proposed to
establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface for Vanderbilt University Hospital Heliport, as instrument
approaches have been designed for the heliport.
    Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No
comments were received.
    Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in
Paragraph 5000, 6004 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11E,
dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15,
2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic routes, and reporting
points.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 establishes Class D and Class E airspace designated as an
extension to Class D airspace for John C. Tune Airport, Nashville, TN,
as a new air traffic control tower shall service the airport. Also, the
FAA increases the existing Class E airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface, from 8-miles to 8.6-miles, due to a
reevaluation of the airspace. In addition, the FAA updates the
geographic coordinates of the airport, as well as Music City Executive
Airport (formerly Sumner County Regional Airport), Lebanon Municipal
Airport, and Murfreesboro Municipal Airport, to coincide with the FAA's
aeronautical database. Also, the FAA establishes Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for Vanderbilt
University Hospital Heliport, as instrument approach procedures have
been designed for the heliport. Finally, subsequent to publication of
the NPRM, the FAA found that Sumner County Regional Airport is now
Music City Executive Airport. This action updates the name of the
airport.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It
therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
only affects air traffic procedures an air navigation, it is certified
that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11E,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020,
effective September 15, 2020, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

ASO TN D Nashville, TN [New]

John C. Tune Airport, TN
    (Lat. 36[deg]10'59'W'' N, long. 86[deg]53'11'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,300 feet MSL, within a 4.1-mile radius of John C. Tune Airport.
This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates
and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The
effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in
the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to Class
D or E Surface Area.

* * * * *

ASO TN E4 Nashville, TN [New]

John C. Tune Airport, TN
    (Lat. 36[deg]10'59'W'' N, long. 86[deg]53'11'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 1.2-miles
each side of the 198[deg] bearing from the airport, extending from
the 4.1-mile radius to 6.1-miles south of the airport, and within
1.2-miles each side of the 018[deg] bearing from the airport,
extending from the 4.1-mile radius to 6.1-miles north of the
airport.

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASO TN E5 Nashville, TN [Amended]

Nashville International Airport, TN
    (Lat. 36[deg]07'28'' N, long. 86[deg]40'41'' W)
Smyrna Airport
    (Lat. 36[deg]00'32'' N, long. 86[deg]31'12'' W)
Music City Executive Airport
    (Lat. 36[deg]22'30'' N, long. 86[deg]24'30'' W)
Lebanon Municipal Airport
    (Lat. 36[deg]11'25'' N, long. 86[deg]18'56'' W)
Murfreesboro Municipal Airport
    (Lat. 35[deg]52'43'' N, long. 86[deg]22'39'' W)
John C. Tune Airport
    (Lat. 36[deg]10'59'' N, long. 86[deg]53'11'' W)
Vanderbilt University Medical Center Hospital
Point In Space Coordinates
    (Lat. 36[deg]08'30'' N, long. 86[deg]48'6'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 15 mile radius of Nashville International Airport, and
within a 9-mile radius of Smyrna Airport, and within a 7-mile radius
of Music City Executive Airport, and within a 10-mile radius of
Lebanon Municipal Airport, and within a 9-mile radius of
Murfreesboro Municipal Airport, and within an 8.6-mile radius of
John C. Tune Airport, and that airspace within a 6-mile radius of
the Point In Space serving Vanderbilt University Medical Center
Hospital.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on November 24, 2020.
Andreese C. Davis,
Manager, Airspace & Procedures Team South, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2020-26439 Filed 11-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 213 (Tuesday, November 3, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69677-69678]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24278]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0027]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Hearing

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 21 individuals from the
hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate
commerce. The exemptions enable these hard of hearing and deaf
individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: The exemptions are applicable on October 30, 2020. The
exemptions expire on October 30, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Dockets Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Viewing Documents and Comments

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2020-0027 and choose the document to review. If you do
not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by
visiting Dockets Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202)
366-9317 or<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting Dockets Operations.

B. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in

the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed
at www.transportation.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On September 23, 2020, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt
of applications from 21 individuals requesting an exemption from the
hearing requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) to operate a CMV in
interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (85 FR
59851). The public comment period ended on October 23, 2020, and no
comments were received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and
determined that granting exemptions to these individuals would achieve
a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would
be achieved by complying with Sec.  391.41(b)(11).
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing
found in Sec.  391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person first perceives a forced
whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or
without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric
device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater
than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a
hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American
National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5--1951.
    This standard was adopted in 1970 and was revised in 1971 to allow
drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing
aid, 35 FR 6458, 6463 (April 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 3, 1971).

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such
exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to,
or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such
exemption. The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at
the end of the 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the
FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a
driver's medical certification.
    The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is
based on current medical information and literature, and the 2008
Evidence Report, ``Executive Summary on Hearing, Vestibular Function
and Commercial Motor Driving Safety.'' The evidence report reached two
conclusions regarding the matter of hearing loss and CMV driver safety:
(1) No studies that examined the relationship between hearing loss and
crash risk exclusively among CMV drivers were identified; and (2)
evidence from studies of the private driver's license holder population
does not support the contention that individuals with hearing
impairment are at an increased risk for a crash. In addition, the
Agency reviewed each applicant's driving record found in the Commercial
Driver's License Information System, for commercial driver's license
(CDL) holders, and inspections recorded in the Motor Carrier Management
Information System. For non-CDL holders, the Agency reviewed the
driving records from the State Driver's Licensing Agency. Each
applicant's record demonstrated a safe driving history. Based on an
individual assessment of each applicant that focused on whether an
equal or greater level of safety is likely to be achieved by permitting
each of these drivers to drive in interstate commerce as opposed to
restricting him or her to driving in intrastate commerce, the Agency
believes the drivers granted this exemption have demonstrated that they
do not pose a risk to public safety.
    Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these
applicants from the hearing standard in Sec.  391.41(b)(11) is likely
to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.

V. Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and includes the following: (1)
Each driver must report any crashes or accidents as defined in Sec.
390.5; (2) each driver must report all citations and convictions for
disqualifying offenses under 49 CFR 383 and 49 CFR 391 to FMCSA; and
(3) each driver is prohibited from operating a motorcoach or bus with
passengers in interstate commerce. The driver must also have a copy of
the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized
Federal, State, or local enforcement official. In addition, the
exemption does not exempt the individual from meeting the applicable
CDL testing requirements.

VI. Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with
respect to a person operating under the exemption.

VII. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 21 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the hearing standard, Sec.
391.41(b)(11), subject to the requirements cited above:

Joel Alfaro (FL)
Adrian Almanza (IL)
Jimmy Benavides (TX)
James Bryan (AR)
Richard Clark (ID)
Jules Garcia (IL)
Calvin Gousby (NV)
Nicholas Gramarossa (IN)
William Heath (NC)
Ryan King (NC)
Alexander Lowe (WA)
Kenneth Morrison (NY)
Darren Norton (MO)
Raphael Pittenger (WA)
Marty Posey (IN)
David Sanders (IL)
Muhammad Shafi (IL)
Nolen Soler (NE)
Donald Taylor (NC)
Anthony Vasquez (TX)
Daniel Zeolla (PA)

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), each exemption will be valid
for 2 years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person
fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the
exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained
prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not
be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315(b).

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-24278 Filed 11-2-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 203 (Wednesday, October 21, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63686-63691]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26596]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0012; FRL-9935-11]

Pyrimethanil; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
pyrimethanil in or on multiple commodities which are identified and
discussed later in this document. Interregional Research Project Number
4 (IR-4) requested the tolerances associated with pesticide petition
number (PP 4E8302), and Bayer CropScience requested the tolerances
associated with PP 4F8291, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective October 21, 2015, except for the
amendment to Sec.  180.661 in amendatory instruction number 3, which is
effective April 21, 2016. Objections and requests for hearings must be
received on or before December 21, 2015, 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-2015-0012, 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: Susan Lewis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0012 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
December 21, 2015. 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-2015-0012, 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 17, 2014 (79 FR 75107) (FRL-
9918-90), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of (PP 4E8302) by IR-4, 500
College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition
requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing tolerances
for residues of the fungicide pyrimethanil, (4,6-dimethyl-N-phenyl-2-
pyrimidinamine), in or on cucumber at 1.5 parts per million (ppm);
fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 14 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12-12 at 10
ppm; grapefruit subgroup 10-10C at 10 ppm; lemon subgroup 10-10B at 11
ppm; orange subgroup 10-10A at 10 ppm; and tomato subgroup 8-10A at 0.5
ppm. Upon approval of the tolerances in this petition, the petition
requested that the tolerances for fruit, citrus, group 10 except lemon,
postharvest; fruit, pome, group 11 (preharvest and post-harvest);
fruit, stone, group 12; lemon (preharvest and postharvest); and tomato
be removed as they are superseded. This petition additionally requested
that 40 CFR 180.518 be amended by revising the existing tolerance for
onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A from 2.0 ppm to 0.20 ppm. That document
referenced a summary of the petition prepared on behalf of IR-4 by
Bayer CropScience,

the registrant, which is available in the docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0590
at http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in
response to this notice of filing.
    In the Federal Register of May 20, 2015 (80 FR 28925) (FRL-9927-
39), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of PP 4F8291 by Bayer
CropScience, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12014, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27709. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended
by establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide pyrimethanil,
in or on in or on caneberry (subgroup 13-07A) at 15.0 ppm and bushberry
(subgroup 13-07B) at 8.0 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the
petition prepared by Bayer CropScience, the registrant, which is
available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. A comment was
received on the notice of filing. EPA's response to the comment is
discussed in Unit IV.C.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petitions, EPA has
revised the petitioned-for tolerance in or on fruit, pome, group 11-10.
The Agency has also determined that the separate subgroup tolerances
proposed in or on orange subgroup 10-10A, lemon subgroup 10-10B, and
grapefruit subgroup 10-10C should be established in or on fruit,
citrus, group 10-10. The reasons for these changes are explained in
Unit IV.D.

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 pyrimethanil including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with pyrimethanil 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.
    The major target organs of repeated oral exposure to pyrimethanil
were the liver, kidney and thyroid. By the oral route of exposure, the
rat was the most sensitive species to pyrimethanil toxicity, followed
by the dog and then the mouse. Effects observed including clinical
signs (for example, vomiting, diarrhea and salivation in the dog),
changes in clinical chemical parameters (liver enzymes), changes in
organ weights (mostly relative), and macroscopic and microscopic organ
changes. These effects were accompanied by decreased body weight.
Clinical signs of neurotoxicity including ataxia and dilated pupils,
and decreases in motor activity, hind limb grip strength and body
temperature were observed in an acute neurotoxicity study in rats
(females only) at the highest dose tested (HDT). However, there was no
evidence of neurotoxicity with repeated dosing in a subchronic
neurotoxicity study in rats.
    Special short-term exposure studies conducted for pyrimethanil
demonstrated increased liver uridine diphosphate glucuronosyl
transferase activity, leading to decreases in thyroid hormones (T3, T4)
and compensatory increases in thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) in
adult rats. Although the effects on the thyroid raise a potential
concern for thyroid toxicity in the young, EPA concluded there is no
concern for thyroid toxicity in the young based on the following: (1)
The effects are not severe in nature and; (2) the wide dose spread
(i.e., more than 10-fold difference between the no observed adverse
effect levels (NOAELs) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-levels
(LOAELs) in each of the studies showing effects on thyroid hormone
levels (as well as the studies the Agency is using for its points of
departure) provides a measure of protection for any potential effects
linked to decreased thyroid hormone levels in offspring. Moreover,
reproductive toxicity was not observed following pyrimethanil
administration, and developmental effects (e.g., decreased fetal
weight, retarded ossification, extra ribs) were observed only at doses
that caused maternally toxic effects (e.g., death, decreased body
weight and body-weight gain); therefore, pyrimethanil is not expected
to result in increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibility for
infants and children.
    Thyroid adenomas were seen in rats following long-term exposure,
and it was concluded that they were mediated via disruption of the
thyroid/pituitary axis. There were no concerns for mutagenicity. The
EPA has classified pyrimethanil as ``not likely to be carcinogenic to
humans at doses that do not alter rat thyroid hormone homeostasis.''
This decision was based on the following:
    1. There were treatment-related increases in thyroid follicular
cell tumors in male and female Sprague-Dawley rats at doses which were
considered adequate to assess carcinogenicity; however, rats are
substantially more sensitive than humans to the development of thyroid
follicular cell tumors in response to thyroid hormone imbalance.
    2. There were no treatment-related tumors seen in male or female
CD-1 mice at doses which were considered adequate to assess
carcinogenicity.
    3. There is no mutagenicity concern and there is no evidence for
thyroid carcinogenesis mediated through a mutagenic mode of action.
    4. The non-neoplastic toxicological evidence (i.e., thyroid growth,
thyroid hormonal changes) indicated that pyrimethanil was inducing a
disruption in the thyroid-pituitary hormonal status. The overall
weight-of-evidence was considered sufficient to indicate that
pyrimethanil induced thyroid follicular tumors through a non-linear,
antithyroid mode of action.
    For these reasons, EPA determined that quantification of
carcinogenic risk is not required and that the NOAEL established for
deriving the chronic reference dose (cRfD) would be protective of
cancer effects. Due to the non-linear mode of action of pyrimethanil,
exposure at the NOAEL is not expected to alter thyroid hormone
homeostasis nor result in thyroid tumor formation.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by pyrimethanil as well

as the NOAEL and the LOAEL from the toxicity studies can be found at
http://www.regulations.gov in document, ``Pyrimethanil. Human Health
Risk Assessment for Proposed Uses on Greenhouse-Grown Cucumbers, Tomato
Subgroup 8-10A, Lemon Subgroup 10-10B, Orange Subgroup 10-10A,
Grapefruit Subgroup 10-10C, Pome Fruit Group 11-10, Stone Fruit Group
12-12 Caneberry Subgroup 13-07A, and Bushberry Subgroup 13-07B,'' in
pp. 29-31 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0012.

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 the NOAEL and the LOAEL are identified.
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 pyrimethanil used for human risk assessment is discussed
in Table 1 in Unit III.B. of the final rule published in the Federal
Register of August 1, 2012 (77 FR 45499) (FRL-9354-7).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to pyrimethanil, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing pyrimethanil tolerances in 40
CFR 180.518. EPA assessed dietary exposures from pyrimethanil in food
as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
    Such effects were identified for pyrimethanil. In estimating acute
dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2003-2008 National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA).
As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed default processing factors,
empirical processing factors for orange and apple juice, tolerance-
level residues, and 100 percent crop treated (PCT) for all commodities.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 2003-2008
NHANES/WWEIA. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed default
processing factors, empirical processing factors for orange and apple
juice, tolerance-level residues, and 100 PCT for all commodities.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that pyrimethanil is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans
at doses that do not alter rat thyroid hormone homeostasis. Therefore,
a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk
was not performed.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the
dietary assessment for pyrimethanil. Tolerance-level residues and/or
100 PCT were assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. In drinking water,
residues of concern are pyrimethanil and the degradate 2-amino-4,6-
dimethylpyrimidine. The Agency used screening-level water exposure
models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for
pyrimethanil and its degradate in drinking water. These simulation
models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/
transport characteristics of pyrimethanil and its degradate. 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.
    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Surface Water Concentration Calculator (SWCC)
models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of
pyrimethanil and its degradate for acute exposures are estimated to be
156 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 128 ppb for ground
water. For chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments, they are
estimated to be 27.9 ppb for surface water and 117 ppb for ground
water.
    Current EPA policy typically recommends the EDWCs for use in
dietary assessments be derived from the water source with the highest
EDWCs, which for pyrimethanil is surface water for acute exposure and
groundwater for chronic exposure. However, due to generally low
leaching (EDWCs and incomplete breakthrough) identified in the 100-year
simulation in groundwater, the surface water EDWCs are recommended for
both acute and chronic exposure assessments. Therefore, for acute
dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 156 ppb was
used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary
risk assessment, the water concentration of value 27.9 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). Pyrimethanil is not
registered for any specific use patterns that would result in
residential exposure.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.'' EPA has not found
pyrimethanil to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other
substances, and pyrimethanil does not appear to produce a toxic
metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that pyrimethanil does not
have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For
information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a
common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of
such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply

an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children
in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure
unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of
safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of
safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality Protection Act
Safety Factor (FQPA SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains
the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor
when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The prenatal and postnatal
toxicology database for pyrimethanil includes rat and rabbit
developmental toxicity studies and a 2-generation reproduction toxicity
study in rats. As discussed in Unit III.A., there was no evidence of
increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibility of fetuses or
offspring following exposure to pyrimethanil in these studies.
    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 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for pyrimethanil is complete.
    ii. Clinical signs of neurotoxicity (ataxia, decreased motor
activity, decreased body temperature, decreased hind limb grip strength
in males, and dilated pupils) were observed only in females in the
acute neurotoxicity study in rats and only at the HDT (1,000 milligram/
kilogram (mg/kg)). Although the limit dose was not tested in the
subchronic neurotoxicity study, no clinical signs, behavioral changes,
or neuropathology were seen at one-half of the limit dose (up to 430
milligram/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day)). In addition, no neurotoxic signs
were seen in the rest of the toxicity database for pyrimethanil and the
target organ for toxicity is the thyroid. The selected endpoints for
pyrimethanil will be protective of any potential signs of
neurotoxicity. Therefore, the concern for neurotoxicity is low, and
there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional
uncertainty factors (UFs) to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence that pyrimethanil results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the surface water modeling used to assess
exposure to pyrimethanil in drinking water. These assessments will not
underestimate the exposure and risks posed by pyrimethanil.

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. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to pyrimethanil will occupy 40% of the aPAD for children one to two
years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
pyrimethanil from food and water will utilize 80% of the cPAD for
children one to two years old, the population group receiving the
greatest exposure. There are no residential uses for pyrimethanil.
    3. Short- and intermediate-term risk. Short- and intermediate-term
aggregate exposures take into account short- and intermediate-term
residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background exposure level). Short- and
intermediate-term adverse effects were identified; however,
pyrimethanil is not registered for any use patterns that would result
in short- or intermediate-term residential exposures. Short- and
intermediate-term risk is assessed based on short- or intermediate-term
residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no
short- or intermediate-term residential exposures 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 short-
term risk), no further assessment of short- or intermediate-term risk
is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for
evaluating short-term risk for pyrimethanil.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. EPA has determined
that the thyroid tumors seen in rat studies arise through a non-linear
mode of action and the NOAEL (17 mg/kg/day) established for deriving
the cRfD is not expected to alter thyroid hormone homeostasis nor
result in thyroid tumor formation. Thus, the chronic risk assessment
addresses any cancer risk. Based on the results of chronic risk
assessment, EPA concludes that aggregate exposure to pyrimethanil will
not cause a cancer risk.
    5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to pyrimethanil residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology, high-performance liquid
chromatography (HPLC), is available to enforce the tolerance
expression.
    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.
    There are no Codex MRLs established for residues of pyrimethanil in
or on cucumber or bushberry subgroup 13-07B or caneberry subgroup 13-
07A commodities. A U.S. tolerance in or on pome fruit group 11-10 was
petitioned-

for at 14 ppm; however, the EPA is establishing a tolerance at 15 ppm
in order to harmonize with Codex MRLs established on associated pome
fruit commodities at 15 ppm. The U.S. tolerance in or on bulb onion
subgroup 3-07A at 0.20 ppm is harmonized with a Codex MRL on bulb
onion. Although there is a Codex MRL at 0.7 ppm for tomato, EPA is
establishing a tolerance for the tomato subgroup 8-10A at 0.50 ppm in
order to harmonize with the Canadian MRL to facilitate trade with
Canada. The U.S. tolerances for citrus fruit group 10-10 at 10 ppm and
stone fruit group 12-12 at 10 ppm cannot be harmonized with Codex MRLs
on the same commodities because the residue data supporting these uses
result in tolerance calculations that are higher than the Codex MRLs
for citrus (7 ppm) and the range of MRLs for stone fruit commodities (2
ppm to 4 ppm), which precludes harmonization.

C. Response to Comments

    One comment was received to the Notice of Filing for PP 4F8291,
which provided general support for the proposed tolerances. There were
no concerns identified in this public comment.

D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    Based upon review of the data supporting the petitions, EPA has
revised the petitioned-for tolerance in or on fruit, pome, group 11-10
from 14 ppm to 15 ppm, in order to harmonize with the Codex MRL on
associated pome fruit commodities. The Agency has also determined that
the separate subgroup tolerances petitioned-for in or on orange
subgroup 10-10A at 10 ppm, lemon subgroup 10-10B at 11 ppm, and
grapefruit subgroup 10-10C at 10 ppm should be established in or on
fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 10 ppm. A citrus group 10-10 tolerance at
10 ppm is supported by available data and harmonizes the U.S. tolerance
with the Canadian MRL.

E. International Trade Considerations

    In this rulemaking, EPA is reducing the tolerance for the onion,
bulb, subgroup 3-07A from 2.0 ppm to 0.20 ppm. The petitioner requested
this reduction because it was a typographical error when the previous
rule for pyrimethanil was published. EPA had assessed the tolerance at
0.20 ppm, but the rule was printed as 2.0 ppm. The reduction is
appropriate based on available data and residue levels resulting from
registered use patterns. In accordance with the World Trade
Organization's Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Agreement, EPA is
allowing the existing higher tolerance to remain in effect for 6 months
following the publication of this rule in order to allow a reasonable
interval for producers in the exporting countries to adapt to the
requirements of these modified tolerances. On April 21, 2016, the new
reduced tolerance for subgroup 3-07A will go into effect. At that time,
residues of pyrimethanil on commodities contained in subgroup 3-07A
will need to comply with the new tolerance of 0.20 ppm. This reduction
in tolerance is not discriminatory; the same food safety standard
contained in the FFDCA applies equally to domestically produced and
imported foods.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of pyrimethanil
(4,6-dimethyl-N-phenyl-2-pyrimidinamine) in or on bushberry subgroup
13-07B at 8.0 ppm; caneberry subgroup 13-07A at 15 ppm; cucumber at 1.5
ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 10 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11-10 at
15 ppm; fruit, stone group 12-12 at 10 ppm; and tomato subgroup 8-10A
at 0.50 ppm. This regulation additionally revises the tolerance in or
on onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A from 2.0 ppm to 0.20 ppm. Finally, this
regulation removes tolerances in or on fruit, citrus, group 10, except
lemon, postharvest; fruit, pome, group 11 (pre-harvest and post-
harvest); fruit, stone, group 12; lemon, preharvest and postharvest;
and tomato.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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: October 13, 2015.
Susan Lewis,
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.  180.518, the table in paragraph (a)(1):
0
a. Remove the commodities ``fruit, citrus, group 10, except lemon,
postharvest''; ``fruit, pome, group 11 (pre-harvest and post-
harvest)''; ``fruit, stone, group 12''; ``lemon, preharvest and
postharvest''; and ``tomato''; and
0
b. Add alphabetically the following commodities to the table.
    The additions read as follows:

Sec.  180.518  Pyrimethanil; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. (1) * * *

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

                                * * * * *
Bushberry subgroup 13-07B...................................         8.0
Caneberry subgroup 13-07A...................................          15

                                * * * * *
Cucumber....................................................         1.5
Fruit, citrus, group 10-10..................................          10
Fruit, pome, group 11-10....................................          15

                                * * * * *
Fruit, stone, group 12-12...................................          10

                                * * * * *
Tomato subgroup 8-10A.......................................        0.50

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

* * * * *

0
3. In Sec.  180.518, in the table in paragraph (a)(1), effective April
21, 2016, revise the existing tolerance ``Onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A''
to read as follows:

Sec.  180.518  Pyrimethanil; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General.
    (1) * * *

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

                                * * * * *
Onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A.................................         0.2

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-26596 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 130 (Tuesday, July 7, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40731-40733]
[FR Doc No: 2020-14496]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0114]

Hours of Service of Drivers: Application for Exemption; Werner
Enterprises

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA),
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of final disposition; grant of exemption.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
announces its decision to grant Werner Enterprises' (Werner)
application for an exemption from the requirement that certain data
fields be included in electronic records of duty status (RODS) files
presented by electronic logging devices (ELDs). Due to incompatibility
issues between Werner's current ELD supplier and its new supplier,
Platform Science, Werner requests that, during the first eight days
that each of its drivers transitions to Platform Science, the company
be permitted to leave blank five specific data fields in the RODS file.
The Agency has determined that the limited exemption would likely
achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be obtained in the absence of the exemption.

DATES: This exemption is effective July 7, 2020 and expires July 7,
2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Pearlie Robinson, FMCSA Driver and
Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle
Safety Standards; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If
you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

I. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to www.regulations.gov and insert
the docket number, ``FMCSA-2020-0114'' in the ``Keyword'' box and click
``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket Folder'' button and choose
the document to review. If you do not have access to the internet, you
may view the docket by visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room
W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is
there to help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> before
visiting Docket Operations.

II. Legal Basis

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b) to grant exemptions
from certain parts of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the
public an opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the
application, including any safety analyses that have been conducted.
The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public comment on the
request.
    The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted,
and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reasons for denying or granting the application
and, if granted, the name of the person or class of persons receiving
the exemption, and the regulatory provision from which the exemption is
granted. The notice must also specify the effective period and explain
the terms and conditions of the exemption. The exemption may be renewed
(49 CFR 381.300(b)).

III. Background

    On December 16, 2015 (80 FR 78292), FMCSA published a final rule
requiring most drivers who are required to prepare hours-of-service
(HOS) RODS to use ELDs instead of paper logs to document their RODS.
The final rule also established minimum performance and technical
design standards for ELDs. Appendix A to subpart B of 49 CFR part 395
(appendix A) provides requirements for data fields that must be
included in electronic RODS files generated by ELDs. Generally, if more
than one ELD is used to record a driver's records, the ELD in the
vehicle the driver most recently operates must produce a complete ELD
report for the driver on demand, reflecting the current 24-hour period
and the previous 7 consecutive days.

IV. Werner's Exemption Application

    Werner requests that during the first eight days that each of its
drivers makes the transition from Werner's current ELD supplier to its
new supplier, Platform Science, five specific data fields required
within the ELD Outputs, as listed in Section 4.8 of appendix A be
excluded in the RODS files accessed through the in-cab ELD unit. The
files generated by the current ELDs used by Werner include all the
required information. The files generated by the Platform Science ELDs
that Werner began using in 2020 include all the required information.
Due to incompatibilities between Werner's current ELD supplier and its
new supplier, 5 data elements will not be available on the ELD during
the transition, which will last no more than the first 8 days each
driver uses the new ELD system. The affected fields in section 4.8 of
appendix A are as follows:
     Co-driver information;
     Odometer Elapsed--vehicle elapsed miles/kilometers in
given ignition power on cycle;
     Engine Hours Elapsed--elapsed time of engine operation in
the given ignition power on cycle;
     Engine Hours Total--total engine hours at time of event;
and
     Odometer Total (decimal)--total at time of the event.
    Consequently, during the first eight days a driver is operating a
Werner vehicle equipped with the new Platform Science ELD, the
electronic RODS file accessible in the vehicle will not include the
five data elements specified for the full required time prior to the
installation of the new ELD; however, all other information needed to
determine compliance with the HOS rules will be available. The
inspector would review the electronic RODS via FMCSA's eRODS software
which would detect the missing data elements in the Platform Science
ELD presentation of the previous eight days of RODS. This problem will
affect Werner's entire fleet which consists of roughly 10,000 drivers
and 8,000 power units as the transition takes place.
    Werner notes that its drivers would have electronic RODS files
available for review using FMCSA's eRODS software providing accurate
duty status information for the current day and the previous seven days
at any inspection location. While the files would not include the five
data elements listed, HOS information can still be verified at the
roadside, and the information would be available for an on-site
investigation conducted at a Werner facility. The remaining data
elements would provide a means for identifying non-compliance with the
underlying HOS requirements. Werner is requesting a one-year exemption
to complete the transition.

V. Method To Ensure an Equivalent or Greater Level of Safety

    According to Werner's application, ``[p]aper logbooks can be lost,
falsified, illegible, etc. We know due to our extensive log audit
system, which includes 100% real-time monitoring of hours of service
records, that the Omnitracs hours of service records are accurate.
Having the ability to upload this electronic data for the 8 days
preceding the transition to the new Platform Science system is a safer
option for our drivers to prevent fatigue and helps roadside
enforcement be assured that the information is accurate.'' However,
certain fields identified by Werner cannot be accurately transferred
onto the new devices from its prior ELD data.
    A copy of the exemption application is included in the docket
referenced at the beginning of this notice.

VI. Public Comments

    On April 13, 2020 (85 FR 20566), FMCSA published a Federal Register
notice requesting public comment on Werner's exemption application. The
Agency received 19 comments from the public, six in favor and 12 in
opposition.
    The six supporters were: The American Trucking Associations (ATA),
California Trucking Association, Commercial Vehicle Training
Association (CVTA), Florida Trucking Association, Nebraska Trucking
Association and Truckload Carriers Association. For example, ATA wrote:

    The application merely presents a specific means to allow the
interoperability of two ELD systems--not to exempt its drivers from
the broader ELD requirements that ATA has long supported.
Consequently, ATA believes this application meets FMCSA's
requirement under 49 CFR 381.210(c)(4) to establish an equivalent or
greater level of safety. As discussed, the application's limited
time and scope provide Werner with the flexibility its staff and
engineers need to monitor fleet compliance with HOS rules. Werner's
desire to use RODS generated from an ELD--as compared to reverting
to manually created paper records--will also undoubtedly eliminate
the ability for falsification and inaccurate records.

    CVTA said:

    For the reasons as outlined by the American Trucking
Associations, Truckload Carriers Association, the Florida Trucking
Association, California Trucking Association, and Nebraska Trucking
Association, CVTA also believes that granting this exemption makes
sense. Because we believe granting this exemption poses no risk to
highway safety, we encourage the FMCSA to move forward and grant the
application for exemption.

    The 12 opponents were: Jesse Cole, Mark Rawn, Michael Groff, Larry
Gump, Michael Glenn, George Thornton, David Battiest, Darrin Atkinson,
Michael Crites, John Smith, John Haynes, and Caelan Helsel. Larry Gump
stated, ``[p]lease deny this request it is unnecessary and [sic] Werner
can afford to ensure the fields are provided.'' Mr. Michael Crites
wrote, ``[a]bsolutely no exemption should be granted to any carrier.
Especially one that pushed for the ELD mandate. They need to be held
responsible for not having their act together. If this was any other
carrier they would be held liable. Many other outfits have done exactly
what was required of them. This is a [multi-million] dollar company.
They have no excuse for this.''

VII. FMCSA Safety Analysis and Decision

    FMCSA has evaluated the application for exemption and the public
comments submitted.
    Based on the information presented in Werner's request, the Agency
believes it is appropriate to grant the exemption covering the appendix
A requirement for the specific data fields discussed above during the
8-day period following the installation of the Platform Science ELD. We
have determined, as required by 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1) and the
implementing regulations under 49 CFR part 381, that the exemption is
likely to achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater
than, the level of safety that would be obtained in the absence of the
exemption.
    From a safety equivalency perspective, all of Werner's drivers
would have electronic RODS files available for review at any inspection
location using FMCSA's eRODS software providing accurate duty status
information for the current day and the previous seven days. While the
files would not include the specific data elements discussed above, HOS
information can still be verified at the roadside, and the information
would be available for an on-site investigation conducted at a Werner
facility. The remaining data elements would provide more than
sufficient means for identifying non-compliance with the underlying
hours-of-service requirements.
    For the reasons cited above, we grant Werner Enterprises a limited
waiver from the appendix A requirements for the specific data elements
listed above with terms and conditions provided below.

VIII. Terms and Conditions for the Exemption

    This exemption is limited to Section 4.8 of appendix A to subpart B
of part 395 concerning the requirements for the following data fields
in electronic RODS files generated by Omnitracs ELDs and retrieved via
a Platform Science ELD:
     Information to be included in the Print/Display as
required by <IP_ADDRESS>(b):

[cir] Co-Driver: Co-Driver's Last Name, Co-Driver's First Name
[cir] Co-Driver ID: ELD username for the co-driver
[cir] Total Vehicle Miles
[cir] Total Engine Hours
[cir] Accumulated Vehicle Miles, and
[cir] Elapsed Engine Hours;

     Co-driver information as required in <IP_ADDRESS>.1 of the
Header Segment;
     ELD Event List records data elements required by <IP_ADDRESS>.4
and the ELD Event Log List for the Unidentified Driver Profile
<IP_ADDRESS>.10:

[cir] Accumulated Vehicle Miles, and
[cir] Elapsed Engine Hours;
     Data elements for Malfunction and Data Diagnostic Events
<IP_ADDRESS>.7, ELD Login/Logout Report <IP_ADDRESS>.8 and CMV's Power-Up and
Shut Down Activity <IP_ADDRESS>.9:

[cir] Total Vehicle Miles, and
[cir] Total Engine Hours.
    During the period of the exemption:
    1. Werner must ensure that each of its drivers continues to use
ELDs that meet all the technical specifications required by 49 CFR part
395;
    2. Each driver operating under the exemption must maintain a copy
of this notice and documentation of the date of installation of the
Platform Science ELD to establish the 8-day period for which the
exemption is applicable;
    3. Werner must maintain all electronic files generated by Omnitracs
ELDs for each of its drivers for at least 6 months from the date the
records were created and ensure that each of those files contains all
the data elements specified by Section 4.8 of appendix A to subpart B
of part 395.

Preemption of State Laws and Regulations

    During the period this exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with or is inconsistent
with this exemption with respect to a firm or person operating under
the exemption (49 U.S.C. 31315(d)).

Notification to FMCSA

    Werner must notify FMCSA within 5 business days of any accident (as
defined in 49 CFR 390.5), involving any of the motor carrier's CMVs
operating

under the terms of this exemption. The notification must include the
following information:
    (a) Identity of the exemption: ``Werner Enterprises'';
    (b) Name of operating motor carrier;
    (c) Date of the accident;
    (d) City or town, and State, in which the accident occurred, or
closest to the accident scene;
    (e) Driver's name and license number;
    (f) Vehicle number and State license number;
    (g) Number of individuals suffering physical injury;
    (h) Number of fatalities;
    (i) The police-reported cause of the accident;
    (j) Whether the driver was cited for violation of any traffic laws,
motor carrier safety regulations; and
    (k) The driver's total driving time and total on-duty time period
prior to the accident.
    Reports filed under this provision shall be emailed to
[email protected]

Termination

    FMCSA does not believe the drivers covered by this exemption will
experience any deterioration of their safety record. Interested parties
or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that
Werner is not achieving the requisite statutory level of safety should
immediately notify FMCSA.
    The Agency will evaluate any information submitted and, if safety
is being compromised or if the continuation of this exemption is
inconsistent with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(4) and 31136(e), FMCSA will
immediately take steps to revoke the exemption.

James A. Mullen,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-14496 Filed 7-6-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: December 7, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 234)]
[Notices]
[Page 72865-72866]
[DOCID:fr07de05-130]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Issuer Delisting; Notice of Application of Applera Corporation To
Withdraw Its Applera Corporation-Applied Biosystems Group Common Stock
$.01 Par Value, Together With Rights To Purchase Series A Participating
Junior Preferred Stock, $.01 Par Value, and Applera Corporation-Celera
Genomics Group Common Stock, $.01 Par Value, Together With Rights To
Purchase Series B Participating Junior Preferred Stock, $.01 Par Value,
From Listing and Registration on the Pacific Exchange, Inc. File No. 1-
04389

December 1, 2005.
    On November 14, 2005, Applera Corporation, a Delaware corporation
(``Issuer''), filed an application with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to section 12(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'')\1\ and Rule 12d2-2(d)
thereunder,\2\ to withdraw its Applera Corporation-Applied Biosystems
Group common stock $.01 par value, together with rights to purchase
series A participating junior preferred stock, $.01 par value, and
Applera Corporation-Celera Genomics Group common stock, $.01 par value,
together with rights to purchase series B participating junior
preferred stock, $.01 par value (collectively ``Securities''), from
listing and registration on the Pacific Exchange, Inc. (``PCX'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78l(d).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.12d2-2(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Board of Directors (``Board'') of the Issuer approved a
resolution on June 16, 2005 to withdraw the Securities from PCX. The
Issuer stated that the Board determined that it is in the best interest
of the Issuer and its stockholders to withdraw the Securities from PCX
to avoid the direct and indirect costs associated with the listing of
the Securities on PCX since the Securities are listed and traded on the
New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NYSE'').
    The Issuer stated in its application that it has complied with
applicable rules of PCX by providing PCX with the required documents
governing the withdrawal of securities from listing and registration on
PCX. The Issuer's application relates solely to the withdrawal of the
Securities from listing on PCX and shall not affect its continued
listing on NYSE or its obligation to be registered under section 12(b)
of the Act.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 781(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any interested person may, on or before December 23, 2005, comment
on the facts bearing upon whether the application has been made in
accordance with the rules of PCX, and what terms, if any, should be
imposed by the Commission for the protection of investors. All comment
letters may be submitted by either of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
the File Number 1-04389 or;

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street,
NE.,Washington, DC 20549-9303.

All submissions should refer to File Number 1-04389. This file number
should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us
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/delist.shtml). Comments are

also available for public inspection and copying in the Commission's
Public Reference Room. All comments received will be posted without
change; we do not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly.

    The Commission, based on the information submitted to it, will
issue an order granting the application after the date mentioned above,
unless the Commission determines to order a hearing on the matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(1).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\4\
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-6982 Filed 12-6-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P