[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 21, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51721-51724]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20406]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-1017; FRL-9396-5]

Notice of Receipt of Requests To Voluntarily Cancel Certain
Pesticide Registrations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is issuing a notice of receipt of requests
by registrants to voluntarily cancel certain pesticide registrations.
This notice announces a request from Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC to
voluntarily cancel the last two remaining tralkoxydim products
registered for use in the United States. EPA intends to grant these
requests at the close of the comment period for this announcement
unless the Agency receives substantive comments within the comment
period that would merit its further review of the requests, or unless
the registrants withdraw their requests. If these requests are granted,
any sale, distribution, or use of products listed in this notice will
be permitted after the registration has been canceled only if such
sale, distribution, or use is consistent with the terms as described in
the final order.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 20, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-1017, 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 Confidential Business
Information (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.
    Submit written withdrawal request by mail to: Pesticide Re-
Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001. ATTN: John W. Pates, Jr.
     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.htm.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John W. Pates, Jr., Pesticide Re-
Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide
users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution,
or use of pesticides.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:

    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. What action is the agency taking?

    This notice announces receipt by the Agency of requests from
registrants to cancel 29 pesticide products registered under FIFRA
section 3 or 24(c). These registrations are listed in sequence by
registration number (or company number and 24(c) number) in Tables 1a
and 1b of this unit.
    This notice also announces receipt by EPA of requests from the
registrant Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC (Syngenta) to cancel the last
two remaining tralkoxydim product registrations. Tralkoxydim is a
systemic, postemergence herbicide registered for agricultural use to
selectively control certain annual grass weeds in wheat, barley, and
triticale. Tolerances are currently established for tralkoxydim
residues in or on the raw agricultural commodities barley and wheat (40
CFR 180.548). There are no residential uses currently registered for
tralkoxydim. The registration review process for tralkoxydim began in
September 2011, with the issuance of the Preliminary Work Plan for
Registration Review in the docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0706 for a 60-day
comment period. The Tralkoxydim Final Work Plan for Registration Review
was completed in February 2012, and the registration review Data Call-
In was issued in February 2013. Syngenta is currently the only
registrant of tralkoxydim products in the United States. In a letter to
EPA, dated August 2, 2013, Syngenta requested voluntary cancellation of
two tralkoxydim end-use products (EPA Registration Nos.<PHONE_NUMBER>5
and<PHONE_NUMBER>6). These are the last two tralkoxydim products
registered for use in the United States. EPA is not proposing any
tolerance actions for tralkoxydim at this time. If any tolerance
actions become necessary in the future, there will be an announcement
in the Federal Register and there will be a public comment period on
the proposed action.
    Unless the Agency determines that there are substantive comments
that warrant further review of the requests or the registrants withdraw
their requests, EPA intends to issue an order in the Federal Register
canceling all of the affected registrations.

     Table 1a--Registrations With Pending Requests for Cancellation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Registration No.         Product name               Chemical name
------------------------------------------------------------------------
000100-01125.....  Impasse Termite System....  Lambda-cyhalothrin.
000100-01156.....  Impasse Premix GR.........  Lambda-cyhalothrin.
000100-01166.....  Impasse Termite Blocker...  Lambda-cyhalothrin.
000264-01048.....  EXP3 Seed Applied           Thiodicarb.
                    Nematicide/Insecticide.
000432-01237.....  BES Garden Dust 10%.......  Carbaryl.
000432-01238.....  AES Carbaryl Insecticide    Carbaryl.
                    Spray-RTU.
000432-01239.....  BES Garden Dust 5%........  Carbaryl.
000432-01244.....  AES Sevin Granules Ant,     Carbaryl.
                    Flea, Tick & Grub Killer
                    (1% Sevin).
001022-00563.....  Chapco KD.................  Potassium
                                                dimethyldithiocarbamate.
001022-00574.....  DCD-SDDC..................  Sodium
                                                dimethyldithiocarbamate.
001022-00577.....  Buffalo System II.........  Sodium
                                                dimethyldithiocarbamate.
009688-00296.....  Chemsico 0.51% Granular     Propiconazole.
                    Propiconazole.
010807-00448.....  Country Vet Flea & Tick     MGK 264, Pyrethrins (NO
                    Fogger with Growth          INERT USE),
                    Inhibitor.                  Pyriproxyfen,
                                                Permethrin.
010807-00454.....  Country Vet Fly             Stabilene, Pyrethrins (NO
                    Insecticide & Repellent     INERT USE), Piperonyl
                    for Horses.                 butoxide.
010807-00466.....  CB Country Vet 80.........  Piperonyl butoxide,
                                                Pyrethrins (NO INERT
                                                USE).
010807-00469.....  Country Vet Fogger with     Pyrethrins (NO INERT
                    Esfenvalerate.              USE), Piperonyl
                                                butoxide, Esfenvalerate,
                                                MGK 264.
011556-00121.....  Advantage TM 110..........  Imidacloprid.
040391-00010.....  Entech Fog-10.............  MGK 264, Piperonyl
                                                butoxide, Pyrethrins (NO
                                                INERT USE).
060061-00107.....  Woodtreat XL Sapstain       1-Decanaminium, N-decyl-
                    Control Chemical.           N,N-dimethyl-, chloride
                                                and Propiconazole.
060061-00114.....  Woodtreat P Sapstain        Propiconazole.
                    Control Chemical.
060061-00121.....  Woodtreat XP Sapstain       Propiconazole and
                    Control Product.            Carbamic acid, butyl-, 3-
                                                iodo-2-propynyl ester.
060061-00124.....  Valvtect Marine Premium     Morpholine, 4,4'-(2-ethyl-
                    Diesel With Bioguard        2-nitro-1,3-
                    Additive.                   propanediyl)bis-, 4-(2-
                                                Nitrobutyl)morpholine.
073049-00450.....  Dinotefuran Fly Bait......  Dinotefuron.
083558-00005.....  Paraquat Dichloride         Paraquat dichloride.
                    Technical.
MD-010001........  Sevin Brand XLR Plus        Carbaryl.
                    Carbaryl Insecticide.
PA-010002........  Sevin XLR Plus Carbaryl     Carbaryl.
                    Insecticide.
WI-110001........  Starcane Ultra Herbicide..  Fluroxypyr 1-methylheptyl
                                                ester.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Table 1b--Tralkoxydim Registrations With Pending Requests for
                              Cancellation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Registration No.         Product name               Chemical name
------------------------------------------------------------------------
000100-01105.....  Achieve 40DG Herbicide....  Tralkoxydim.
000100-01106.....  Achieve 80DG Herbicide....  Tralkoxydim.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for
all registrants of the products in Table 1a and Table 1b of this unit,
in sequence by EPA company number. This number corresponds to the first
part of the EPA registration numbers of the products listed in this
unit.

         Table 2--Registrants Requesting Voluntary Cancellation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       EPA company No.                  Company name and address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
100..........................  Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, 410 Swing
                                Road, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC
                                27419-8300.
264 MD010001, PA010002.......  Bayer Cropscience LP, 2 T.W. Alexander
                                Drive, P.O. Box 12014, Research Triangle
                                Park, NC 27709.
432..........................  Bayer Environmental Science, A Division
                                of Bayer Cropscience LP, 2 T.W.
                                Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12014,
                                Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.
1022.........................  IBC Manufacturing Co., 416 E. Brooks
                                Road, Memphis, TN 38109.
9688.........................  Chemsico, A Division of United Industries
                                Corp., P.O. Box 142642, St. Louis, MO
                                63114-0642.
10807........................  Amrep, Inc, 990 Industrial Park Drive,
                                Marietta, GA 30062.
11556........................  Bayer Healthcare, LLC, P.O. Box 390,
                                Shawnee Mission, KS 66201-0390.
40391........................  Entech Systems Corporation, Agent:
                                Regguide, 509 Tower Valley Drive,
                                Hillsboro, MO 63050.
60061........................  Kop-Coat, Inc., 3020 William Pitt Way,
                                Pittsburgh, PA 15238.
73049........................  Valent Biosciences Corporation,
                                Environmental Science Division, 870
                                Technology Way, Libertyville, IL 60048-
                                6316.
83558........................  Celsius Property B.V., Amsterdam (NL),
                                Agent: Makhteshim Agan of North America,
                                Inc., 3120 Highwoods Blvd., Suite 100,
                                Raleigh, NC 27604.
WI-110001....................  Dow Agrosciences LLC, 9330 Zionsville
                                Road, Suite 308/2E, Indianapolis, IN
                                46268-1054.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What is the agency's authority for taking this action?

    Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA provides that a registrant of a pesticide
product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations
be canceled. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request,
EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the Federal
Register.
    Section 6(f)(1)(B) of FIFRA requires that before acting on a
request for voluntary cancellation, EPA must provide a 30-day public
comment period on the request for voluntary cancellation or use
termination. In addition, FIFRA section 6(f)(1)(C) requires that EPA
provide a 180-day comment period on a request for voluntary
cancellation or termination of any minor agricultural use before
granting the request, unless:
    1. The registrants request a waiver of the comment period, or
    2. The EPA Administrator determines that continued use of the
pesticide would pose an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment.
    The registrants in Table 2 of Unit II. have requested that EPA
waive the 180-day comment period. Accordingly, EPA will provide a 30-
day comment period on the proposed requests.

IV. Procedures for Withdrawal of Request

    Registrants who choose to withdraw a request for cancellation
should submit such withdrawal in writing to the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. If the products have been subject to a
previous cancellation action, the effective date of cancellation and
all other provisions of any earlier cancellation action are
controlling.

V. Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks

    Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products
that are currently in the United States and that were packaged,
labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the
cancellation action. Because the Agency has identified no significant
potential risk concerns associated with the pesticide products listed
in Table 1a and Table 1b of Unit II. of this notice, the proposed
existing stocks provisions for these products are as follows.

A. For All Products Identified in Table 1a in Unit II.

    EPA anticipates allowing registrants to sell and distribute
existing stocks of these products for 1-year after publication of the
Cancellation Order in the Federal Register. Thereafter, registrants
will be prohibited from selling or distributing the pesticides
identified in Table 1a of Unit II., except for export consistent with
FIFRA section 17 or for proper disposal. Persons other than registrants
will generally be allowed to sell, distribute, or use existing stocks
until such stocks are exhausted, provided that such sale, distribution,
or use is consistent with the terms of the previously approved labeling
on, or that accompanied, the canceled products.

B. For All Tralkoxydim Products Identified in Table 1b in Unit II.

    EPA anticipates allowing the registrant to continue to sell and
distribute the existing stocks of these products until November 1,
2014. Thereafter, registrants will be prohibited from selling or
distributing the pesticides identified in Table 1b of Unit II., except
for export consistent with FIFRA section 17 or for proper disposal.
Additionally, persons other than the registrant may sell, distribute,
or use existing stocks of these products until existing stocks are
exhausted, provided that such sale, distribution, or use is consistent
with the terms of the

previously approved labeling on, or that accompanied, the canceled
products.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: August 14, 2013.
Richard P. Keigwin, Jr.,
Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2013-20406 Filed 8-20-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 28, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40604-40606]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15987]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0713]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and
Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-NEW

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request
(ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval for the
following collection of information: 1625-NEW, State Registration Data.
Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public.
Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting
comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before September 27,
2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2014-0713] to the Coast Guard using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public
participation and request for comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available
from: Commandant (CG-6P), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S.
Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, STOP 7710,
Washington, DC 20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A.L. Craig, Office of Privacy
Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions
on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.
    In response to your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not
to seek an extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider
all comments and material received during the comment period.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of
the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2014-0713], and
must be received by September 27, 2021.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and
submissions in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System
of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).
    The Coast Guard previously published two, 60-day notices (79 FR
60483, October 7, 2014, and 81 FR 85987, November 29, 2016) and one,
30-day notice (83 FR 54128, October 26, 2018) required by 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2). Those three notices elicited ten public comment
submissions. Following this paragraph, we list the specific concerns or
questions raised in those ten submissions. We also list the comments
and questions we received from Coast Guard staff that may be helpful to
clarify for the public. Following the comment description, we provide
our updated responses, including descriptions of any changes we made to
the ICR and forms. The Coast Guard is publishing an additional 60-day
notice for public commenting due to the significant time that has
elapsed since the previous notices were published.
    Comment (1): A requestor asks the Coast Guard to consider mandating
to states that personal watercraft (PWC) data collection is separately
maintained. This will ensure accuracy in the entirety of boat
classification data collection and significantly aid PWC manufacturers
in market assessment.
    Answer: The Coast Guard is maintaining the personal watercraft
category in our proposed data collection (see 33 CFR 174.19(a)(11)); we
proposed to collect statistics on personal watercraft by length
category.
    Comment (2): A commenter stated that the Coast Guard's tabulation
of State numbered vessels as a result of this Information Collection
Request (ICR) cannot be used to measure risk as stated in the
supplemental Paperwork Reduction Act submission that accompanies this
ICR, especially since there are numerous recreational boating accidents
and fatalities that occur in vessels not required to be numbered and
not reflected in this collection of information.
    Answer: Information in the proposed collection will be used to
measure risk; Registration data frequently serves as the denominator of
fatality rates (usually expressed in number of deaths per 100,000
registered vessels). The existence of registration data allows the
Coast Guard to normalize data and provide meaningful statistics and
recommendations for the National Recreational Boating Safety (RBS)
Program. The revised collection proposed to break down registration by
motorization so that an additional measure, motorized vessel fatality
rate, could be used (number of deaths on motorized vessels per 100,000
motorized registered vessels). This measure would provide a much
sounder denominator since all States do not collect registration data
on non-motorized vessels.
    Comment (3): A commenter noted that in accordance with 33 CFR
174.123, each State that has an approved numbering system must prepare
and submit Coast Guard form CGHQ-3923,

Report of Certificates of Number Issued to Boats, to the Coast Guard.
Although OMB No. 1625-NEW reflects the revised vessel type terminology
resulting from the Coast Guard's 2012 issuance of the Final Rule on
Canges to Standard Numbering System, Vessel Identification System, and
Boating Accident Report Database (Docket No. USCG-2003-14963), it does
not accurately reflect the CFR's terminology in its title or
instructions (i.e., all references to the approved numbering system,
state numbered boats and certificates of number have been replaced with
registrations and registered).
    Answer: This is true. The proposed form focuses on registered
vessels, which allows the Coast Guard to examine a larger scope of
vessels that fall under the National Recreational Boating Safety
Program. The Coast Guard will consider changes to the form title in 33
CFR 174.123 to more accurately reflect the data collection under this
Information Collection Request.
    Comment (4): A commenter noted that OMB No. 1625-NEW is dated June
2014, inferring that is already in use (or may be required for use).
Because States are currently in various stages of implementation of the
Final Rule (with final implementation required by January 1, 2017),
States cannot be compelled to begin using OMB No. 1625-NEW prior to
January 1, 2017. Any required deviation from the use of CGHQ-3923 prior
to January 1, 2017 will result in additional (and in some cases,
significant) burden and cost to the States.
    Answer: The June 2014 date was filled in as a placeholder. The form
was drafted and sent for comment early so that the public could comment
on the proposed content, and the States could prepare for changes after
the data collection is finalized. The Coast Guard has accepted but not
required a State's use of this form.
    Comment (5): At this time, the state of Ohio is still in the
process of transitioning to the new requirements cited in 33 CFR 174.19
(which we are required to implement by January 1, 2017). That being the
case, what are the Coast Guard's intentions with regard to the version
of the reporting form we will need to use to make our annual reporting
in 2015 and beyond? Will we have the option to use the ``older''
version of the reporting form until such time that we have transitioned
to the new requirements? And, if required to use the new form prior to
that transition, how will the Coast Guard view any incomplete data that
might not be able to be generated in the new format prior to completion
of the transition?
    Answer: The Coast Guard has accepted but not required a State's use
of this form.
    Comment (6): Knowing that hull type, and more importantly engine
drive information can be important details in better identifying and
understanding the boating demographics within a state, what is the
rationale for omitting this information in this revised collection
form?
    Answer: The Coast Guard has not used the hull material or engine
information collected in prior registration collections. Because we
have not used the data, we removed it from the form so as to reduce the
burden of data reporting on the States.
    Comment (7): Do the estimates of the form completion burden account
for any initial burden in transitioning to this revised reporting
scheme? What is the basis for estimates of burden in items 12 and 13 of
the Supporting Statement for the collection?
    Answer: No. The burden estimate took into account the collection of
information, which is based on the number of respondents, frequency of
form submission and an estimate of the time taken to fill out the form.
    Comment (8) is: Is there any relationship between this revision and
anticipated efforts to bring CFR into agreement with the Uniform
Certificate of Titling Act for Vessels (UCOTA-V)?
    Answer: There is not a relationship between this revision and the
UCOTA-V efforts.
    Comment (9): Under Puerto Rico law, a Ship or vessel means any
system of transportation on water that has a motor installed,
including, but without been limited to jet skis, motorized rafts, power
sailboats, motor boats, or powered driven boats of any sort, including
homemade vessels powered by motor, but excluding hydroplanes. A
watercraft means a mode of transportation which does not have a motor
installed, such as rowboats, canoes, kayaks, sailboats with or without
oars, water skis, surfboards with or without sail, rafts, inflatable
systems, and any device that moves on the surface of the water without
being propelled by a motor, although it could be fit for installation
or adaptation of some type of motor. Therefore, the proposed change
creates an overburden of conflicting definitions or wording to deal
with in this case. Also, the removal of the proposed definitions leaves
the accident investigation protocol without proper wording to aid in
the determination of felonies, infractions, or misdemeanors committed.
    Answer: This comment is outside the scope of the Notice requesting
comments on this information collection. Please use the definitions in
33 CFR 173.3 for this information collection.
    Comment (10): SS173.57: Same comment as in the previous paragraph.
Mainly, when evaluating marine events involving either vessels,
watercrafts, or both. It may also affect the terms and conditions of
the memorandum of Agreement between the Government of the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico and the USCG under 14 U.S.C. SS2,89,141; 46 CFR SS13109
and 33 CFR SS100.01 as to comply with 46 U.S.C. 13103(c)(2) on the
matter of marine events and boat accident reports procedures.
    Answer: This collection of information does not relate to marine
events or boat accident report procedures. Therefore, this comment is
outside the scope of the Notice requesting comments on the collection.
    Comment (11): The definitions in 33 CFR 181.3 do not include the
manufacturing of handmade vessels and is inconsistent with SS181.23(b).
It should include person engaged in the manufacture of a boat for his
or her own use (operation) and not for sale.
    Answer: This collection of information is for all registered
vessels. If a homemade vessel is registered, it should be included in
the statistics.
    Comment (12): If a state has already transitioned--or will soon
transition--its numbering system and the content of the certificates of
number over to the requirements cited in 33 CFR 174.19 (i.e., before
the Jan. 1, 2017 implementation deadline), what version of the form is
it suppose to use? If, as a result of the ICR, the OMB formally
approves the collection and issues an OMB Control Number to this
revised form 3923 before the Jan. 1, 2017 deadline for states to
implement the new requirements, will a state that does not make the
transition until the deadline be able to submit its data on the ``old''
version of the form?
    Answer: States would be asked to submit information on the historic
form. If a State has already transitioned to the new terms ahead of the
January 1, 2017 deadline, the Coast Guard will accept registration data
on either form.
    Comment (13): If there are variations in the version of the forms
employed by the states and submitted to the Coast Guard, how will the
Coast Guard reconcile those differences in the computation and report-
out of registration data?

    Answer: The Coast Guard will merge datasets if both the historic
and proposed forms are used.
    In addition to the above comments submitted to the docket, the
following comments and questions were received by Coast Guard program
staff members:
    Comment (14): Is this just the periodic request to approve the
continuation of the collection of registration data?
    Answer: Yes.
    Comment (15): Has the Notice been issued primarily (at this time)
as part of the process to get OMB to issue a control number?
    Answer: Yes.
    Comment (16): Is this in preparation for collection of registration
data under the ``new'' vessel terms authorized by the Final Rule on
State Numbering System (SNS), Vessel Identification System (VIS), and
Boating Accident Report Database (BARD) (eff. Jan 2017)?
    Answer: Yes. This form makes use of the ``primary operation'' and
``vessel type'' in 33 Code of Federal Regulation 174.19.
    Comment (17): Is there a revised collection form that will
accompany it?
    Answer: Yes. There is a revised collection form that is greatly
simplified. The proposed revision provides instructions, a breakdown of
recreational vessel types by motorization and length category, a
breakdown of commercial vessel types, and an administration section.
    Comment (18): Will there be any other supporting documentation
posted to regulations.gov for this Notice?
    Answer: Yes. The Coast Guard posted additional files to docket
USCG-2014-0173, including the proposed registration form and supporting
statement.
    Comment (19): A commenter questioned the Coast Guard's response to
previously submitted comment (6) in which the Coast Guard noted a
reduced reporting burden with the revised form. The commenter noted
that the burden is not reduced since collecting aspects of vessels such
as hull material and engine type are already required under 33 CFR 174
even if statistics regarding these aspects are not required on form
CGHQ-3923.
    Answer: The burden of filling out the revised form is reduced. On
the previous version of CGHQ-3923, the Coast Guard required statistics
on over 150 data points whereas the proposed version of the form
requires only 69. The previous version requested information on five
variables (vessel type, hull material, length, engine type, and use)
whereas the proposed version requires only three variables (vessel
type, length, primary operation). The Coast Guard expects a reduced
burden as the proposed form will require fewer queries and fewer data
point checks to complete it.
    Comment (20): A commenter questioned why aspects of vessels such as
hull material and engine type are necessary in 33 CFR 174 since they
are not required elements to be reported on form CGHQ-3923.
    Answer: Various aspects of vessels are required to be collected for
law enforcement purposes. Even though various vessel aspects such as
hull material and engine type are not on the proposed form CGHQ-3923,
they are used in accident, theft, and fraud investigations. Using
common terminology facilitates common understanding.
    Comment (21): A commenter noted that hull material and engine type
are of interest to sectors and should be on form CGHQ-3923 since
information on them cannot be obtained outside of CGHQ-3923.
    Answer: The Coast Guard works with various sectors including
government, industry, non-profits, and researchers. If a party
requested information other than what is available on CGHQ-3923, the
Coast Guard would direct the user to a more appropriate contact.
    Comment (22): A commenter provided a recommended version of CGHQ-
3923 that is a modification of the previous CGHQ-3923. It includes
additional hull material entries, an additional engine type, and
changes the names of some categories.
    Answer: The Coast Guard thanks the commenter for the suggested form
but maintains a desire to have a simplified form for use by the States.
The Coast Guard has not used the hull material or engine information
collected previously. Because we have not used the data, we removed it
from the form so as to reduce the burden of data reporting on the
States.

Information Collection Request

    Title: State Registration Data.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-NEW.
    Summary: This Notice provides information on the collection of
registration data from the State reporting authorities.
    Need: Title 46 U.S.C. 12302 and 33 CFR 174.123 authorizes the
collection of this information.
    Forms: CG-3923, State Registration Data.
    Respondents: 56 State reporting authorities respond.
    Frequency: Annually.
    Hour Burden Estimate: This is a new information collection request.
The estimated burden is 42 hours a year.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter
35, as amended.

    Dated: July 22, 2021.
Kathleen Claffie,
Chief, Office of Privacy Management, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2021-15987 Filed 7-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 82 (Monday, May 1, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20256-20257]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08749]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2016-9151; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASW-15]

Revocation of Class E Airspace and Establishment of Class E
Airspace; Ruston, LA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action removes Class E airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface at Ruston Municipal Airport, Ruston, LA, as the
airport has closed and controlled airspace is no longer required, and
establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface at the new Ruston Regional Airport, Ruston, LA. This final rule
is necessary to ensure the safety and management of instrument flight
rules (IFR) operations at the new airport.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, August 17, 2017. 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 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://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:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of
FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules 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 modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface in the airspace near Ruston, LA, to accommodate IFR
procedures at the new Ruston Regional Airport.

History

    On October 12, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register (81
FR 70372) Docket No. FAA-2016-9151, a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) to remove Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface at Ruston Municipal Airport, Ruston, LA. The FAA also
proposed to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface within a 6.5 mile radius of the new Ruston Regional
Airport, Ruston, LA. Interested parties were invited to participate in
this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal
to the FAA. One comment was received stating, ``This would open up
airspace because there would not be controlled airspace as the airport
has shut down.'' While this comment is factually correct, the new
airport and associated airspace has been established approximately 2.5
NM from the location of the closed airport so the change in the
airspace footprint is minimal.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15,
2016, 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 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15,
2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 removes Class E airspace at Ruston Municipal Airport, Ruston,
LA, as the airport has closed; therefore, controlled airspace is no
longer needed. Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of the new Ruston Regional
Airport, Ruston, LA is established for the safety and management of
standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the new
airport.

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, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. 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 and 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 5-6.5.a. 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 7400.11A,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and
effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows:

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

* * * * *

ASW LA E5 Ruston, LA [Removed]

* * * * *

ASW LA E5 Ruston, LA [New]

Ruston Regional Airport, LA
    (Lat. 32[deg]30'53'' N., long. 92[deg]35'18'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of the airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on April 24, 2017.
Walter Tweedy,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2017-08749 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 19, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36671-36677]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14653]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0626; FRL-9391-2]

Acetamiprid; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances and modifies existing
tolerances for residues of acetamiprid in or on multiple commodities
which are identified and discussed later in this document.
Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these
tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective June 19, 2013. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before August 19, 2013,
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-2012-0626, 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), EPA West 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 (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-
5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Ertman, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; 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-2012-0626 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
August 19, 2013. 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-2012-0626, 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.htm.
    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 February 27, 2013 (78 FR 13295) (FRL-
9380-2), 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
3E8147) by IR-4, 500 College Road East, Suite 201W., Princeton, NJ
08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.578 be amended by
establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide, acetamiprid,
(1E)-N-[(6-chloro-3-pyridinyl)methyl]-N'-cyano-N-methylethanimidamide,
including its metabolites and degradates, in or on corn, sweet, kernel
plus cob with husks removed at 0.01 ppm; corn, sweet, forage at 15 ppm;
and corn, sweet, stover at 30 ppm. The petition also proposed
increasing the existing tolerances in fat, meat, and meat byproducts of
cattle, goat, horse, and sheep, and milk. Tolerances in cattle, goat,
horse, and sheep meat are proposed at 0.30 ppm; cattle, goat, horse,
and sheep fat at 0.20 ppm; cattle, goat, horse, and sheep meat
byproducts at 0.70 ppm; and milk at 0.30 ppm. That document referenced
a summary of the petition prepared by Nisso America Incorporated, the
registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov.
    In the Federal Register of September 28, 2012 (77 FR 59578) (FRL-
9364-6), 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
2F8060) by Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. c/o Nisso America Inc., 88 Pine St.,
14th Fl., New York, NY 10005. The petition requested that 40 CFR
180.578 be amended by increasing the existing tolerances for residues
of the insecticide, acetamiprid, (1E)-N-[(6-chloro-3-pyridinyl)methyl]-
N'-cyano-N-methylethanimidamide, including its metabolites and

degradates, in or on the citrus fruit crop group 10-10 at 1.0 ppm; and
citrus, dried pulp at 2.4 ppm. That document referenced a summary of
the petition prepared by Nisso America Incorporated, the registrant,
which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov.
    There were no comments received in response to either notice of
filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
determined that the existing tolerance for dried citrus pulp does not
need to be increased. The reason for these changes is explained in Unit
IV.C.

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 acetamiprid including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with acetamiprid 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.
    Acetamiprid is moderately toxic in acute lethality studies via the
oral route of exposure and is minimally toxic via the dermal and
inhalation routes of exposure. It is not an eye or skin irritant, nor
is it a dermal sensitizer. Acetamiprid does not appear to have specific
target organ toxicity. Generalized toxicity was observed as decreases
in body weight, body weight gain, food consumption and food efficiency
in all species tested. Generalized liver effects were also observed in
mice and rats (hepatocellular vacuolation in rats and hepatocellular
hypertrophy in mice and rats); the effects were considered to be
adaptive. Other effects observed in the oral studies include
amyloidosis of multiple organs in the mouse oncogenicity study, tremors
in high dose females in the mouse subchronic study, and
microconcretions in the kidney papilla and mammary hyperplasia in the
rat chronic/oncogenicity study. No effects were observed in a dermal
toxicity study in rabbits.
    In the rat developmental study, fetal shortening of the 13th rib
was observed in fetuses at the same dose level that produced maternal
effects (reduced body weight and body weight gain and increased liver
weights). In the developmental rabbit study, no developmental effects
were observed in fetuses at doses that reduced maternal body weight and
food consumption. In the reproduction study, decreased body weight,
body weight gain, and food consumption were observed in parental
animals while significant reductions in pup weights were seen in the
offspring in both generations. Also observed were reduction in litter
size, and viability and weaning indices among F2 offspring
as well as significant delays in the age to attain vaginal opening and
preputial separation. In the developmental neurotoxicity study,
parental effects were limited to decreased body weight and body weight
gains, while the offspring effects noted were decreased body weights
and body weight gains, decreased pre-weaning survival (post-natal days
(PNDs) 0-1), and decreased maximum auditory startle response in males
on PNDs 20 and 60.
    In the acute neurotoxicity study, male and female rats displayed
decreased motor activity, tremors, walking and posture abnormalities,
dilated pupils, coldness to the touch and decreased grip strength and
foot splay at the highest dose tested (HDT). There was a decrease in
the auditory startle response in male rats at the HDT in the
developmental neurotoxicity study; additionally, tremors were noted in
female mice at the HDT in the subchronic feeding study.
    In four week immunotoxicity studies performed in both sexes of rats
and mice, no effects on the immune system were observed up to the
highest dose, although significant reductions in body weight and body
weight gain were noted at that dose.
    Based on acceptable carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice, EPA
has determined that acetamiprid is ``not likely to be carcinogenic to
humans.'' The classification is based on (1) the absence of an increase
in the incidence of tumors in a mouse carcinogenicity study; and (2) in
a rat chronic/carcinogenicity study, the absence of a dose-response and
the lack of a statistically significant increase in the mammary
adenocarcinoma incidence by pair-wise comparison of the mid- and high-
dose groups with the controls (although the incidence exceeded the
historical control data from the same laboratory, it was within the
range of values from the supplier). There was no clear evidence of a
mutagenic effect. Acetamiprid tested positive as a clastogen in an in
vitro study but not in an in vivo study.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by acetamiprid as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document titled ``Acetamiprid: Human Health
Risk Assessment for the New Use on Sweet Corn and Increased Tolerance
on Citrus'' on pages 27-32 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0626.

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 acetamiprid used for
human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.

  Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Acetamiprid for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Point of departure and
         Exposure/Scenario             uncertainty/safety    RfD, PAD, LOC for risk    Study and toxicological
                                             factors               assessment                  effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (All populations)....  NOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day..  Acute RfD = 0.10 mg/kg/ Co-critical studies
                                     UFA = 10x.............   day.                    Developmental
                                     UFH = 10x.............  aPAD = 0.10 mg/kg/day.   Neurotoxicity in rat.
                                     FQPA SF = 1x..........                          LOAEL = 45 mg/kg/day based
                                                                                on decreased early pup
                                                                                survival on PND 0-1, and
                                                                                decreased startle response
                                                                                on PND 20/60 in males.
                                                                                Acute Neurotoxicity Study
                                                                                in rat.
                                                                                LOAEL = 30 mg/kg/day based
                                                                                on decreased locomotor
                                                                                activity.
Chronic dietary (All populations)..  NOAEL = 7.1 mg/kg/day.  Chronic RfD = 0.071 mg/ Chronic Toxicity/
                                     UFA = 10x.............   kg/day.                 Oncogenicity Study in
                                     UFH = 10x.............  cPAD = 0.071 mg/kg/day   rats.
                                     FQPA SF = 1x..........                          LOAEL = 17.5 mg/kg/day
                                                                                based on decreased body
                                                                                weight and body weight
                                                                                gains in females and
                                                                                hepatocellular vacuolation
                                                                                in males.
Short- and Intermediate-Term         NOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day..  LOC for MOE = 100.....  Developmental Neurotoxicity
 Incidental Oral (1-30 days and 1-6  UFA = 10x.............                           in rat.
 mo.).                               UFH = 10x.............                          LOAEL = 45 mg/kg/day based
                                     FQPA SF = 1x..........                           on decreased body weight
                                                                                and body weight gains in
                                                                                offspring, decreased early
                                                                                pup survival on PND 0-1,
                                                                                and decreased startle
                                                                                response on PND 20/60 in
                                                                                males.
Short- and Intermediate-term Dermal  Oral study NOAEL = 10   LOC for MOE = 100.....  Developmental Neurotoxicity
 (1-30 days, 1-6 mo.).                mg/kg/day dermal                                in rat.
                                      absorption rate = 10%.                         LOAEL = 45 mg/kg/day based
                                     UFA = 10x.............                           on decreased body weight
                                     UFH = 10x.............                           and body weight gains in
                                     FQPA SF = 1x..........                           offspring, decreased early
                                                                                pup survival on PND 0-1,
                                                                                and decreased startle
                                                                                response on PND 20/60 in
                                                                                males.
Short- and Intermediate-term         Oral study NOAEL = 10   LOC for MOE = 100.....  Developmental Neurotoxicity
 Inhalation (1-30 days, 1-6 mo.).     mg/kg/day (inhalation                           in rat.
                                      absorption rate =                              LOAEL = 45 mg/kg/day based
                                      100%).                                          on decreased body weight
                                     UFA = 10x.............                           and body weight gains in
                                     UFH = 10x.............                           offspring, decreased early
                                     FQPA SF = 1x..........                           pup survival on PND 0-1,
                                                                                and decreased startle
                                                                                response on PND 20/60 in
                                                                                males.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level
  of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-
  level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor.
  UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among
  members of the human population (intraspecies).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to acetamiprid, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing acetamiprid tolerances in 40 CFR
180.578. EPA assessed dietary exposures from acetamiprid 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 acetamiprid. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food
consumption information from the 2003-2008 U.S. Department of
Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in
food, EPA assumed 100 percent crop treated (PCT) and tolerance level
residues in the assessment. Empirical processing factors were used for
processed commodities unless such data were not available, in which
case DEEM default processing factors from Version 7.81 were used.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the 2003-2008 USDA
NHANES/WWEIA. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed 100 PCT and
tolerance level residues in the assessment. Empirical processing
factors were used for processed commodities unless such data were not
available, in which case DEEM default processing factors from Version
7.81 were used.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that acetamiprid does not pose a cancer risk to humans.
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing
cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA did not use
anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the dietary assessment
for acetamiprid. Tolerance level

residues and/or 100 PCT were assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for acetamiprid in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of acetamiprid. 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 First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) and
Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the
estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of acetamiprid for
acute exposures are estimated to be 95.2 parts per billion (ppb) for
surface water and 0.035 ppb for ground water and for chronic exposures
are estimated to be 26.6 ppb for surface water and 0.035 ppb for ground
water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 95.2 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 26.6 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).
    Acetamiprid is currently registered for the following uses that
could result in residential exposures: Indoor and outdoor residential
settings, including crack and crevice and mattress treatments. EPA
assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions: Exposure
for adults (from short-term dermal and inhalation exposure) applying
crack and crevice and mattress treatments; and post-application
exposure for adults (from short- and intermediate-term dermal and
inhalation exposure) and for children 3-6 years old (from short- and
intermediate-term dermal, inhalation and hand-to-mouth exposure)
following crack and crevice and mattress treatments.
    In the previous risk assessment for acetamiprid, EPA had concluded
that a subchronic inhalation study was required, and an additional 10X
FQPA factor was retained as a database uncertainty factor, which raised
the LOC to 1,000 for inhalation scenarios. Because the LOC values were
different (i.e. dermal and oral LOC = 100, while inhalation LOC =
1,000) the respective risk estimates were combined using the aggregate
risk index (ARI) approach. Since then, however, this conclusion was
reevaluated based on a request from the registrant, and EPA has now
concluded that this study is not required. Please refer to section
D.3.i for further details on this inhalation study requirement
conclusion. Therefore, the risk estimates utilize the combined MOE
approach, as opposed to the ARI approach.
    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 acetamiprid to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and acetamiprid does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
acetamiprid 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 FQPA Safety
Factor (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 pre- and postnatal
toxicology database for acetamiprid includes rat and rabbit
developmental toxicity studies, a 2-generation reproduction toxicity
study in rats, and a DNT study in rats. There was no evidence of
quantitative or qualitative susceptibility of rat or rabbit fetuses
following in utero exposure to acetamiprid in the developmental
toxicity studies. However, both the developmental neurotoxicity and 2-
generation reproduction studies showed an increase in qualitative
susceptibility of pups to acetamiprid. Effects in pups in the
reproduction study included delays in preputial separation and vaginal
opening, as well as reduced litter size, decreased pup viability and
weaning indices; offspring effects observed in the developmental
neurotoxicity study included decreased body weight and body weight
gains, decreased pup viability and decreased maximum auditory startle
response in males. These effects were seen in the presence of less
severe maternal toxicity (decreased body weight and body weight gain).
No evidence of increased quantitative susceptibility was observed in
the 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 to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicology data base is complete and acceptable guideline
studies for developmental, reproductive toxicity, neurotoxicity
(including DNT) and immunotoxicity are available.
    In determining the need for a subchronic inhalation study, EPA's
weight of evidence decision process included both hazard and exposure
considerations as well as incorporation of a presumed 10X Database
Uncertainty Factor (UFdb) for the lack of this study. Thus, the
Agency's Level of Concern in the weight of the evidence evaluation for
inhalation exposure risk assessment is a Margin of Exposure (MOE) of
1,000, which includes the 10X inter-species extrapolation factor, 10X
intra-species variation factor, and the 10X UFdb. The Agency had
previously determined that the required 21/28-day inhalation study in
rats was needed to address data uncertainties related to potential
inhalation risk primarily associated with occupational exposure, which
presented the scenarios with the highest potential inhalation exposure.
After reconsideration, EPA has determined that the inhalation study is
no longer required, primarily because exposure levels are expected to
be lower than

previously anticipated, and residential exposures are expected to be
very low. In fact, for residential, non-dietary exposures, the use of
an oral Point of Departure (POD) resulted in MOEs higher than the LOC
of 1,000. This indicates that the lack of an inhalation study does not
reduce the overall confidence in the risk assessment or result in an
uncertainty (i.e., the study will not provide a POD sufficiently low to
result in a risk of concern). Additionally, in the case of acetamiprid,
the oral POD is based on a very sensitive endpoint (effects in rat
pups) seen in a developmental neurotoxicity study. Therefore, there is
high confidence that the Agency is not underestimating risks in the
absence of this study. Because EPA's decision to waive the study
essentially incorporates an additional 10X UFdb (i.e. the study was
only waived because risks were at least 10X lower than required by use
of the inter- and intraspecies safety factors), a second additional 10X
FQPA SF is not being retained for the protection of infants and
children.
    ii. Acetamiprid produced signs of neurotoxicity in the high dose
groups in the acute and developmental neurotoxicity studies in rats and
the subchronic toxicity study in mice. However, no neurotoxic findings
were reported in the subchronic neurotoxicity study in rats.
Additionally, there are clear NOAELs identified for the effects
observed in the toxicity studies. The doses and endpoints selected for
risk assessment are protective and account for all toxicological
effects observed in the database.
    iii. No quantitative or qualitative evidence of increased
susceptibility of fetuses to in utero exposure to acetamiprid was
observed in either the developmental toxicity study in rats or rabbits.
Although increased qualitative susceptibility was seen in the
reproduction toxicity and the DNT study, the degree of concern for the
effects is low. There are clear NOAELs for the offspring effects and
regulatory doses were selected to be protective of these effects. No
other residual uncertainties were identified with respect to
susceptibility. The endpoints and doses selected for acetamiprid are
protective of adverse effects in both offspring and adults.
    iv. The exposure databases (dietary food, drinking water, and
residential) are complete and the risk assessment for each potential
exposure scenario includes all metabolites and/or degradates of concern
and does not underestimate the potential risk to infants or children.
The dietary exposure assessments were based on tolerance level residues
and assumed 100 PCT. Empirical processing factors were used for
processed commodities unless such data were not available, in which
case the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM) default processing
factors were used. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in
the ground water and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to
acetamiprid in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative
assumptions to assess postapplication exposure of children as well as
incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not
underestimate the exposure and risks posed by acetamiprid.

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
aPAD and 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 acetamiprid will occupy 68% of the aPAD for children 1-2 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
acetamiprid from food and water will utilize 60% 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
acetamiprid is not expected.
    3. Short- and intermediate-term risk. Short- and intermediate-term
aggregate exposure takes into account short- and intermediate-term
residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background exposure level). Acetamiprid is
currently registered for uses that could result in short- and
intermediate-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined
that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and
water with short- and intermediate-term residential exposures to
acetamiprid.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
and intermediate-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-
and intermediate-term food, water, and residential exposures result in
aggregate MOEs of 330 for adults and 120 for children. Because EPA's
level of concern for acetamiprid is an MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs
are not of concern.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, acetamiprid is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
    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 acetamiprid residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology Liquid chromotagraphy with tandem
mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS), Method KP-216R0 and its variant
KP-216R1 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 currently no established Codex MRLs for acetamiprid on
sweet corn. There are Codex MRLs on livestock commodities, with the
revised livestock tolerances for the U.S. being higher than the Codex
values. Given the

revised use pattern including sweet corn, these higher U.S. livestock
commodity tolerances are warranted. However, this is not considered to
be a significant trade irritant, as livestock commodities are rarely
shipped internationally. With the citrus (crop group 10-10) tolerance
increase to 1.0 ppm, the U.S. will be harmonized with Codex MRLs.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    For citrus, dried pulp, based on a review of the residue data, the
Agency has determined that a revised citrus pulp tolerance is not
needed and that the existing tolerance of 1.2 ppm is adequate.

 V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of acetamiprid,
(1E)-N-[(6-chloro-3-pyridinyl)methyl]-N'-cyano-N-methylethanimidamide,
including its metabolites and degradates, in or on corn, sweet, forage
at 15 ppm; corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed at 0.01 ppm;
and corn, sweet, stover at 30 ppm. In addition, existing tolerances are
increased as follows: Cattle, fat at 0.20 ppm; cattle, meat at 0.30
ppm; cattle, meat byproducts at 0.70 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at
1.0 ppm; goat, fat at 0.20 ppm; goat, meat at 0.30 ppm; goat, meat
byproducts at 0.70 ppm; horse, fat at 0.20 ppm; horse, meat at 0.30
ppm; horse, meat byproducts at 0.70 ppm; milk at 0.30 ppm; and sheep,
fat at 0.20 ppm; sheep, meat at 0.30 ppm; sheep, meat byproducts at
0.70 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule 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 final rule has
been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule
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 final rule 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 final rule 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 final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (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 of 1995 (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: June 13, 2013.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 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. Section 180.578 is amended as follows:
0
i. In paragraph (a)(1), add alphabetically the commodities ``corn,
sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed,'' ``corn, sweet, forage,''
``corn, sweet, stover'' to the table; and revise the entry for ``fruit,
citrus, group 10-10''.
0
ii. In paragraph (a)(2), revise the entries for and ``cattle, fat'',
``cattle, meat'', ``cattle, meat byproducts''; goat, fat'', ``goat,
meat'', ``goat, meat byproducts''; ``horse, fat'', ``horse, meat'',
``horse, meat byproducts''; ``milk''; and ``sheep, fat'', ``sheep,
meat'', and ``sheep, meat byproducts''.
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

Sec.  180.578  Acetamiprid; tolerances for residues.

    (a)(1) * * *

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

                                * * * * *
Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed.........            0.01
Corn, sweet, forage.....................................              15
Corn, sweet, stover.....................................              30

                                * * * * *
Fruit, citrus, group 10-10..............................             1.0

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

    (a)(2) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Parts per
                        Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cattle, fat.............................................            0.20
Cattle, meat............................................            0.30
Cattle, meat byproducts.................................            0.70

                                * * * * *
Goat, fat...............................................            0.20
Goat, meat..............................................            0.30
Goat, meat byproducts...................................            0.70

                                * * * * *
Horse, fat..............................................            0.20
Horse, meat.............................................            0.30
Horse, meat byproducts..................................            0.70
Milk....................................................            0.30

                                * * * * *
Sheep, fat..............................................            0.20
Sheep, meat.............................................            0.30
Sheep, meat byproducts..................................            0.70
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-14653 Filed 6-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 143 (Friday, July 24, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44947-44948]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16217]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 29, 2020.

PLACE: The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the
Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners,
the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend
the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the
matters also may be present.
    In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting
changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date,
and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website
at https://www.sec.gov.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10),
permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the
following topic:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Resolution of litigation claims; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of
adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information; please
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202)
551-5400.

    Dated: July 22, 2020.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-16217 Filed 7-22-20; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P