[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 10 (Friday, January 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2745-2746]
[FR Doc No: 2011-818]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Eighty-Fourth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 159: Global
Positioning System (GPS)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 159 meeting: Global
Positioning System (GPS).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of RTCA Special Committee 159: Global Positioning System (GPS).

DATES: The meeting will be held February 7-11, 2011, from 9 a.m. to
4:30 p.m. (unless stated otherwise).

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1828 L Street, NW.,
Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW.,
Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (202)
833-9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice
is hereby given for a Special Committee 159: Global Positioning System
(GPS) meeting. The agenda will include:

SPECIFIC WORKING GROUP SESSIONS

Monday, February 7

 All Day, Working Group 2C, GPS/Inertial, MacIntosh-NBAA Room
and Hilton-ATA Room

Tuesday, February 8

 All Day, Working Group 2, GPS/WAAS, Colson Board Room

Wednesday, February 9

 All Day, Working Group 2, GPS/WAAS, Colson Board Room
 All Day, Working Group 4, Precision Landing Guidance (GPS/
LAAS), MacIntosh-NBAA Room and Hilton-ATA Room

Thursday, February 10

 All Day, Working Group 4, Precision Landing Guidance (GPS/
LAAS), MacIntosh-NBAA Room and Hilton-ATA Room.
 Afternoon, Working Group 7, Antenna (GPS Antenna), Colson
Board Room

Friday, February 11, 9 a.m.

Plenary Session--See Agenda Below

Agenda--Plenary Session--Agenda

Colson Board Room
 Chairman's Introductory Remarks
 Approval of Summary of the 83rd Meeting held October 29, 2010,
RTCA Paper No. 004-11/SC159-989
 Review Working Group (WG) Progress and Identify Issues for
Resolution
     GPS/3rd Civil Frequency (WG-1)
     GPS/WAAS (WG-2)
     GPS/GLONASS (WG-2A)
     GPS/Inertial (WG-2C)
     GPS/Precision Landing Guidance (WG-4)
     GPS/Airport Surface Surveillance (WG-5)
     GPS/Interference (WG-6)

     GPS/Antennas (WG-7)
 Review of EUROCAE Activities
 Surveillance Availability Prediction Tool Requirements and
Verification/Validation--Discussion
 Assignment/Review of Future Work
 Other Business
 Date and Place of Next Meeting

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 11, 2011.
Robert L. Bostiga,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2011-818 Filed 1-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 23 (Thursday, February 3, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6163-6164]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2354]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. IC-29573]

Notice of Applications for Deregistration Under Section 8(f) of
the Investment Company Act of 1940

January 28, 2011.
    The following is a notice of applications for deregistration under
section 8(f) of the Investment Company

Act of 1940 for the month of January 2011. A copy of each application
may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file
number, or an applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. An order
granting each application will be issued unless the SEC orders a
hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by
writing to the SEC's Secretary at the address below and serving the
relevant applicant with a copy of the request, personally or by mail.
Hearing requests should be received by the SEC by 5:30 p.m. on February
22, 2011, and should be accompanied by proof of service on the
applicant, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate
of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's
interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons
who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by
writing to the Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100
F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane L. Titus at<PHONE_NUMBER>, SEC,
Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company
Regulation, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-4041.

UBS Index Trust

[File No. 811-8229]

Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an
investment company. On December 7, 2009, applicant made a liquidating
distribution to its shareholders, based on net asset value. Expenses of
$31,000 incurred in connection with the liquidation were paid by UBS
Global Asset Management (Americas) Inc., an affiliate of applicant's
investment adviser.

Filing Date: The application was filed on December 22, 2010.

Applicant's Address: 1285 Avenue of the Americas, 12th Floor, New York,
NY 10019-6028.

BlackRock Insured Municipal Term Trust Inc.

[File No. 811-6512]

Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On December
30, 2010, applicant made a liquidating distribution to its
shareholders, based on net asset value. Prior to the liquidation date,
applicant had redeemed all of its Series M7 and Series M28 Preferred
Shares at their liquidation preference plus any accrued but unpaid
dividends. Expenses of $24,740 incurred in connection with the
liquidation were paid by applicant. Applicant has transferred
approximately $948,176 in cash to a liquidating trust to pay for
contingent liabilities recognized after the liquidation date.

Filing Date: The application was filed on December 30, 2010.

Applicant's Address: 100 Bellevue Parkway, Wilmington, DC 19809.

Credit Suisse Large Cap Growth Fund

[File No. 811-5041]

Credit Suisse Mid-Cap Core Fund, Inc.

[File No. 811-5396]

Summary: Each applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On October 8, 2010, each applicant
transferred its assets to Credit Suisse Large Cap Blend Fund, Inc.,
based on net asset value. Expenses of $44,633 and $49,347,
respectively, incurred in connection with the reorganizations were paid
by Credit Suisse Asset Management, LLC, applicants' investment adviser.

Filing Date: The applications were filed on December 15, 2010.

Applicants' Address: Eleven Madison Ave., New York, NY 10010.

Fortress Investment Trust II

[File No. 811-21140]

Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. Applicant has
never made a public offering of its securities and does not propose to
make a public offering or engage in business of any kind.

Filing Date: The application was filed on January 3, 2011.

Applicant's Address: 1345 Avenue of the Americas, 46th Floor, New York,
NY 10105.

DCW Total Return Fund

[File No. 811-21840]

Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On September
24, 2010, applicant transferred its assets to DCA Total Return Fund,
based on net asset value. Expenses of approximately $279,721 incurred
in connection with the reorganization were paid by applicant, the
acquiring fund, and Dividend Capital Investments LLC, applicant's
investment adviser.

Filing Date: The application was filed on December 28, 2010.

Applicant's Address: 518 17th St., Suite 1200, Denver, CO 80202.

First Trust/Four Corners Senior Floating Rate Income Fund

[File No. 811-21344]

Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On September
30, 2010, applicant made a liquidating distribution to its
shareholders, based on net asset value. Prior to the liquidation date,
applicant had redeemed all of its outstanding money market cumulative
preferred shares. Expenses of approximately $42,799 incurred in
connection with the liquidation were paid by applicant.

Filing Date: The application was filed on January 4, 2011.

Applicant's Address: 120 East Liberty Dr., Suite 400, Wheaton, IL
60187.

Mirae Asset Global Investments (USA), LLC

[File No. 811-22402]

Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an
investment company. Applicant has never made a public offering of its
securities and does not propose to make a public offering or engage in
business of any kind.

Filing Date: The application was filed on January 10, 2011.

Applicant's Address: One Bryant Park, 39th Floor, New York, NY 10036.

Eagle Cash Trust

[File No. 811-4337]

Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an
investment company. On August 27, 2010, applicant made a liquidating
distribution to its shareholders, based on net asset value. Expenses of
approximately $50,378 incurred in connection with the liquidation were
paid by Eagle Asset Management, Inc., applicant's investment adviser.

Filing Date: The application was filed on January 10, 2011.

Applicant's Address: 880 Carillon Pkwy., St. Petersburg, FL 33716.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-2354 Filed 2-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 239 (Monday, December 14, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 77255-77260]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31309]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0769; FRL-9937-22]

Naphthalene Acetates; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of the
naphthalene acetate group in or on pomegranate. Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested the tolerance under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective December 14, 2015. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before February 12, 2016,
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-2014-0769, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Lewis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0769 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 February 12, 2016. 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-2014-0769, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of February 11, 2015 (80 FR 7559) (FRL-
9921-94), 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
4E8310) by IR-4, IR-4 Project Headquarters, 500 College Road East,
Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.155
be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of a family of plant
growth regulators, the naphthalene acetates, in or on pomegranate at
0.05 parts per million (ppm). That document referenced a summary of the
petition prepared by AMVAC Chemical Corporation, the registrant, which
is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no
comments received in response to the notice of filing.

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 the naphthalene acetates
including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this
action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with the
naphthalene acetates follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their
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.
    In this regulatory action, 1-naphthaleneacetic acid is a species of
chemical that includes several similar compounds: Naphthaleneacetamide
(NAA acetamide), naphthaleneacetic acid, potassium naphthaleneacetate
(NAA potassium salt), ammonium naphthaleneacetate (ammonium NAA),
sodium naphthaleneacetate (NAA sodium salt), and ethyl
naphthaleneacetate (NAA ethyl ester). These chemicals are assessed as a
single group and are collectively referred to as the naphthalene
acetates (NAA). Hereafter, NAA will be used to refer to the entire
naphthalene acetate group. These chemical compounds are structurally
related, metabolized to the acid form (by both plants and animals), and
are eliminated from the body as glycine and glucuronic acid conjugates
within 36 to 48 hours after exposure. EPA has concluded that toxicity
testing on any of these compounds should serve for all members of this
group of chemicals.
    In general, NAA sodium salt was the most toxic form in sub-chronic
and chronic studies. Repeated exposure in oral toxicity studies
resulted in decreased body weights and body weight gains accompanied by
decreased food consumption. The major target organs of sub-chronic and
chronic oral exposure were the liver, stomach, and lung. Others
symptoms of toxicity from oral exposure included decreased hematocrit
and hemoglobin, reduced red blood cell (RBC) count in rats and dogs,
and hypocellularity of the bone marrow in dogs. In contrast to oral
exposures, NAA ethyl ester was the most toxic chemical species when
administered dermally, inducing epidermal hyperplasia and
hyperkeratosis, sebaceous gland hyperplasia, and dermal inflammation.
The NAA sodium salt required a 10-fold higher dose to elicit similar
dermal effects and no dermal effects were noted in the NAA acetamide
exposure. Systemic toxicity was not a consequence of dermal exposure to
any of the tested naphthalene acetates.
    Developmental and offspring toxicity was linked to NAA sodium salt
exposure but was not a common observation for the entire naphthalene
acetate group. Developing rats exhibited decreased fetal weight and
minor skeletal changes and were more susceptible to NAA sodium salt
toxicity than the maternal rats. Skeletal defects and variants were
observed in rabbit fetuses after exposure to NAA sodium salt in the
developmental rabbit study; however these effects only occurred at
doses that also compromised maternal health. Offspring toxicity from
NAA sodium salt manifested as reduced litter survival and pup weight
throughout lactation in two generations. These effects coincided with
reduced body weight in both parental generations indicating the adults
and their young were equally susceptible to NAA sodium salt.
    Carcinogenicity studies of NAA acetamide in mice and NAA sodium
salt in rats and mice are considered adequate for the evaluation of the
oncogenicity of the NAA group. In these three studies the tested NAA

compounds were not carcinogenic in mice or rats.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by NAA 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 document, ``Naphthalene Acetate. Human Health
Risk Assessment for a Proposed New Use on Pomegranate'' at pp. 31 in
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0769.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which the NOAEL and the LOAEL are identified.
Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to
calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a population-
adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe margin of
exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any
amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency
estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the
adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for NAA used for human
risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.

      Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for NAA for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Point of departure
        Exposure/scenario            and  uncertainty/    RfD, PAD, LOC for     Study and toxicological effects
                                      safety factors       risk assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (General population  An acute RfD for the general population or any population subgroups was not
 including infants and children).   selected because no effect attributable to a single exposure was observed in
                                    animal studies.
                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary (All populations)  NOAEL = 25 mg/kg/day  Chronic RfD = 0.25   Co-critical Dog Studies with NAA
                                   UFA = 10x...........   mg/kg/day.           Na salt: Subchronic Toxicity.
                                   UFH = 10x...........  cPAD = 0.25 mg/kg/   Chronic Toxicity.
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........   day.                Subchronic.\1\
                                                                              LOAEL = 150 mg/kg/day based on GI
                                                                               tract lesions and hypocellularity
                                                                               of the bone marrow.
                                                                              Subchronic NOAEL = 25 mg/kg/day.
                                                                              Chronic LOAEL = 75 mg/kg/day based
                                                                               on stomach lesions in 75% of the
                                                                               males and slight sinusoidal
                                                                               histiocytosis in the liver of 50%
                                                                               of the males.
Adult Oral Short-term (1-30 Days)  NOAEL = 25 mg/kg/day  LOC = 100..........  Co-critical Dog Studies with NAA
                                   UFA = 10x...........                        Na salt: Subchronic Toxicity.
                                   UFH = 10x...........                       Chronic Toxicity.
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........                       Subchronic LOAEL = 150 mg/kg/day
                                                                               based on GI tract lesions and
                                                                               hypocellularity of the bone
                                                                               marrow.
                                                                              Subchronic NOAEL = 25 mg/kg/day.
                                                                              Chronic LOAEL = 75 mg/kg/day based
                                                                               on stomach lesions in 75% of the
                                                                               males and slight sinusoidal
                                                                               histiocytosis in the liver of 50%
                                                                               of the males.
                                                                              Chronic NOAEL = 15 mg/kg/day.
Inhalation Short-Term (1-30 days)  NOAEL = 25 mg/kg/day  LOC = 1000.........  Co-critical Dog Studies with NAA
                                    \2\                                        Na salt:
                                   UFA = 10x...........                       Subchronic Toxicity.
                                   UFH = 10x...........                       Chronic Toxicity.
                                   FQPA SF = 10x \3\...                       Subchronic LOAEL = 150 mg/kg/day
                                                                               based on GI tract lesions and
                                                                               hypocellularity of the bone
                                                                               marrow.
                                                                              Subchronic NOAEL = 25 mg/kg/day.
                                                                              Chronic LOAEL = 75 mg/kg/day based
                                                                               on stomach lesions in 75% of the
                                                                               males and slight sinusoidal
                                                                               histiocytosis in the liver of 50%
                                                                               of the males.
                                                                              Chronic NOAEL = 15 mg/kg/day.
                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer...........................  Not carcinogenic based on rats and mice bioassays. Not mutagenic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOC = level of concern. Point of Departure (POD) = A data point or an estimated point that is derived from
  observed dose-response data and used to mark the beginning of extrapolation to determine risk associated with
  lower environmentally relevant human exposures. Mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. NOAEL = no observed
  adverse effect level. LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA =
  extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of
  the human population (intraspecies). FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. PAD = population
  adjusted dose (c = chronic). RfD = reference dose.
\1\ The NOAEL/LOAEL used to set endpoints for the co-critical dog studies are in bold.
\2\ Inhalation absorption is assumed to be equivalent to oral absorption.
\3\ FQPA SF for inhalation accounts for the lack of an inhalation study.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to NAA, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for
tolerance as well as all existing NAA tolerances in 40 CFR 180.155. EPA
assessed dietary exposure to NAA 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. No such effects were
identified in the toxicological studies for NAA; therefore, a
quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with
the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID), Version 3.16, which
incorporates 2003-2008 food consumption data from the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). DEEM default processing
factors were used to modify the tolerance values. As to NAA residues
levels in food, tolerance-level residues and 100 percent crop treated
(PCT) assumptions were applied for all affected crops.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that NAA 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 percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the
dietary assessment for NAA. Tolerance level residues and 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 NAA in drinking water. These simulation models take into
account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of NAA. Further information regarding EPA drinking
water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at
http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.
    Tier 1 (Rice Model) Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations (EDWCs)
in surface and groundwater for NAA were used in the dietary exposure
assessment. The EDWCs were calculated using the Tier 1 surface water
aquatic model First Index Reservoir Screening tool (FIRST) and the Tier
I/II groundwater model Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM
GW), in Tier I mode. Accordingly, the EDWCs of NAA for chronic
exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 65.1 parts per
billion (ppb) for surface water and 646 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 646 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).
    NAA is currently registered for root dip and sprout inhibition
applications to ornamentals, which could result in residential
exposures. There is a potential for short-term oral and inhalation
exposures to residential handlers, resulting from loading and applying
NAA. Though there is potential for dermal exposures for residential
handlers, no dermal endpoint was selected due to the lack of systemic
toxicity up to the limit dose (1,000 milligram/kilogram/day (mg/kg/
day)). There are no residential uses for NAA that result in incidental
dermal or oral exposure to children. The rooting compounds are applied
by holding the plant and dipping the roots into solution. Very little
exposure is expected from this use. Sprout inhibitors are applied by
spray or paint brush/roller after pruning trees, or by spraying near
the base of the tree after pruning root suckers. There is very little
potential for post-application exposure to NAA for adults or children
based on the residential use pattern; therefore, residential post-
application exposure is not expected, nor is intermediate- or long-term
exposure based on the intermittent nature of applications by
homeowners.
    Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic
inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.
    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 NAA to share a common mechanism of toxicity with
any other substances, and NAA does not appear to produce a toxic
metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that NAA 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://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/culmative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

 D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality
Protection Act Safety Factor (FQPA SF). In applying this provision, EPA
either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional
safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of
a different factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is low concern and no
residual uncertainty for pre- and/or postnatal toxicity resulting from
exposure to the naphthalene acetates. Clear NOAELs and LOAELs were
established for the developmental and offspring effects and the points
of departure selected for all exposure scenarios are protective of
these effects.
    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 for the oral and dermal routes of exposure
but retained a 10X for the inhalation route of exposure. That decision
is based on the following findings:
    i. The toxicity database for NAA is complete, except for a
subchronic inhalation toxicity study. EPA is

retaining a 10X FQPA SF for the inhalation route of exposure however,
as discussed in Unit III.C.3, the EPA only expects short-term
inhalation exposures to residential handlers, resulting from loading
and applying NAA. Therefore, there is no concern for increased
susceptibility in infants and children via the inhalation route. EPA
waived the requirements for the acute and subchronic neurotoxicity
studies.
    ii. There is no indication that NAA is a neurotoxic chemical based
on the available studies in the database, and EPA determined that there
is no need for acute and subchronic developmental neurotoxicity studies
or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. The endpoints selected from the co-critical dog studies are
protective of the effects observed in the rat developmental, rabbit
developmental, and rat reproduction studies. Therefore, the potential
for increased susceptibility in infants and children is low.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The chronic dietary food exposure assessment was performed
based on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to NAA in drinking water. Based on the discussion in
Unit III.C.3., regarding limited residential use patterns, exposure to
residential handlers is very low and EPA does not anticipate post-
application exposure to children or incidental dermal or oral exposures
to toddlers resulting from use of NAA in residential settings. These
assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by NAA.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
NAA is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
NAA from food and water will utilize 15% of the cPAD for infants <1
year 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 NAA is not expected.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Using the
exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures,
short-term aggregate risk was estimated for combined oral and
inhalation exposure in adults applying naphthalene acetate products
with a paint-airless sprayer. This is considered the worst case
scenario for the aggregate risk assessment. Endpoints selected for the
short-term adult oral exposure and inhalation exposure were based on
common effects and could therefore be combined in the aggregate
assessment.
    The EPA calculated an aggregated risk indices (ARI) to combine
inhalation and oral exposures to adults. This resulted in an ARI
greater than 1. An ARI value greater than 1 is not of concern to EPA,
therefore, aggregate exposure to residential handlers is acceptable.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level). Because no intermediate-term adverse effect was identified, NAA
is not expected to pose an intermediate-term risk.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, NAA is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to NAA residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology, a high performance liquid
chromatography (HPLC) method using fluorescence detection (Method NAA-
AM-001) and a similar method (Method NAA-AM-002), is available to
enforce the tolerance expression for NAA in plant commodities.
    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 is no established Codex MRL for NAA use on pomegranate.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, a tolerance is established for residues of NAA in or on
pomegranate at 0.05 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it
require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898,
entitled ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16,
1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: December 3, 2015.
Susan Lewis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.155, add to the table in alphabetical order an entry
for ``pomegranate'' to read as follows:

Sec.  180.155  1-Naphthaleneacetic acid; tolerance for residues.

    (a) * * *

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

                                * * * * *
Pomegranate................................................        0.05

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-31309 Filed 12-11-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


<EPA BIOPESTICIDES AND POLLUTION PREVENTION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER  >

<EPA Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division contact: [insert name and telephone number with area code]>

<INSTRUCTIONS:  Please utilize this outline in preparing the pesticide petition.  In cases where the outline element does not apply, please insert “NA-Remove” and maintain the outline. Please do not change the margins, font, or format in your pesticide petition. Simply replace the instructions that appear in green, i.e., “[insert company name],” with the information specific to your action.>

<SUBMISSION: E-mail the completed template to<EMAIL_ADDRESS> <TEMPLATE:>

<[Valent BioSciences Corporation]>

<[# 73049-EUP-T]>

<	EPA has received a pesticide petition ([# 73049-EUP-T]) from [Valent BioSciences Corporation], [870 Technology Way, Libertyville, IL 60048] proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.>

<(Options (pick one)>

<	3. to establish an amendment/expansion of an existing tolerance exemption for the>

<(Options (pick one)>

<	1. microbial pesticide  [NA Remove]>

<	2. biochemical pesticide [S-Abscisic Acid; (S)-5-(1-hydroxy-2,6,6-trimethyl-4-oxo-1-cyclohex-2-enyl)-3-methyl-penta -(2Z,4E)-dienoic Acid]>

<	3. plant-pesticide [NA Remove] in or on

			[Leafy Vegetables, (Crop Group 4)

			Herbs and Spices, (Crop Group 19)

			Pome Fruit, (Crop Group 11)

			Stone Fruit, (Crop Group 12)

			Pineapple].>

<	Pursuant to section 408(d)(2)(A)(i) of  FFDCA, as amended, [Valent BioSciences Corporation] has submitted the following summary of information, data, and arguments in support of their pesticide petition. This summary was prepared by [Valent BioSciences Corporation] and EPA has not fully evaluated the merits of the pesticide petition. The summary may have been edited by EPA if the terminology used was unclear, the summary contained extraneous material, or the summary unintentionally made the reader conclude that the findings reflected EPA’s position and not the position of the petitioner.>

<I. [Valent BioSciences Corporation]  Petition Summary>

<	[# 73049-EUP-T]>

<A. Product Name and Proposed Use Practices>

<	[Abscisic acid (ABA) is a hormone that has been found in all vascular plants thus far analyzed as well as in algal plants.  Levels of ABA vary from 3 to 5 ppb in aquatic plants to 10 ppm in avocado fruit.  ABA is also produced by some phytopathogenic fungi including Cercospora cruenta and Botrytis cinerea.

ABA is involved in many major processes during plant growth and development including dormancy, germination, bud break, flowering, fruit set, general growth and development, stress tolerance, ripening, abscission and senescence.  One of the best-known roles of ABA is its regulation of water loss through control of stomatal closure.  ABA is one of the five major hormones found in plants.  In July of 2005 the Agency classified ABA as a biochemical pesticide because of its ubiquitous presence in nature.

Valent BioSciences Corp. is requesting a extension of the temporary tolerance exemption for Abscisic Acid (ABA) for the use on grapes, to also cover the listed crops; [Leafy Vegetables, (Crop Group 4), Herbs and Spices, (Crop Group 19), Pome Fruit, (Crop Group 11), Stone Fruit, (Crop Group 12), and Pineapple].

Proposed Applications, Rates, and Timings

S-ABA will be applied in one to four applications of 100 to 2000 ppm each in a water volume of up to 200 gallons per acre.]>

<B. Product Identity/Chemistry>

<	1. Identity of the pesticide and corresponding residues. [S-Abscisic acid; (S)-5-(1-hydroxy-2,6,6-trimethyl-4-oxo-1-cyclohex-2-enyl)-3-methyl-(2Z,4 E)-pentadienoic acid, (CAS #: [21293-29-8]) has been tested and characterized.]>

<	2. Magnitude of residues at the time of harvest and method used to determine the residue. [Residues of ABA from application to the listed crops can be expected to rapidly dissipate to levels consistent with those observed naturally in fruits and vegetables.]>

<	3. A statement of why an analytical method of detecting and measuring the levels of the pesticide residue are not needed. [Residues of ABA applied to plants are subject to rapid degradation and photoisomerization, the route and rate of which is well understood.  Because of the natural occurrence of ABA in all plant derived food or feed items and the use rate and use pattern, no residues are expected be present above the natural background levels of ABA at harvest.  Analytical methods for the measurement of Abscisic acid in crop materials are present in the literature.  A tolerance exemption petition normally does not require submission of analytical methods to measure residues for which a tolerance is not being established.]>

<C. Mammalian Toxicological Profile>

<	[Acute toxicity:   The acute oral toxicity determined using the rat was greater than 5,000 mg/kg of body weight in female rats.  The acute dermal toxicity using the rat, was greater than 5,000 mg/kg body weight in male and female rats.  The acute inhalation toxicity was greater than 2.06 mg/L in male and female rats.>

Primary eye irritation, tested in rabbits, showed mild irritation to the eye.  Iritis and conjunctivitis cleared after 24 hours.   Primary skin irritation, tested in the rabbit, showed this material to be slightly irritating.  This irritation cleared within 24 hours after treatment.  ABA was tested for Sensitization in the Guinea Pig and found not to be a skin sensitizer.

Genotoxicity:   From three mutagenicity studies (Ames test, mouse micronucleus assay, and unscheduled DNA synthesis assay in the rat), it was determined that abscisic is not mutagenic.

Subchronic Toxicity:  	Dermal exposure to S-ABA for 6 hours each day for a period of 3 weeks resulted in all male and some female animals treated at 1000 mg/kg/day, and a few animals treated at 300 mg/kg/day being noted with very slight erythema (barely perceptible) at dose site on up to 3 occasions during the study.  Increase in white blood cell count and its associated parameters were observed in males treated at 1000 mg/kg/day, however, as examination of the blood smears revealed normal morphology with no corroborating histological findings, the changes were considered not to be toxicologically significant.

	In conclusion, under the conditions of this study, the No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) was considered to be 1000 mg/kg/day, the limit dose.

	The test substance was administered to four groups of 20 Sprague-Dawley rats (10 males and 10 females) at levels up to 20,000 ppm in the diet, for 13-weeks.  No treatment related deaths occurred.  A non-statistically significant slight reduction in mean body weight gain and group mean bodyweight throughout treatment in males treated with 20,000 ppm and non-statistically significant reduction in group mean bodyweight gain in females treated at 20,000 ppm. There was no effect on food consumption.

	Increased covariant liver weights (without statistical significance) noted in males treated at ≥ 6,000 ppm and females treated at 20,000 ppm, correlates with the slight change noted in cholesterol noted in males, however triglycerides were decreased with no changes seen in the proteins or liver enzymes and so these findings were not conclusive of toxicity. Furthermore, there were no differences noted in clinical pathology or histopathology of the liver.  All differences noted in the covariant thyroid, liver, pituitary, spleen and adrenal gland weights in males or females (without statistical significance) were not represented in the clinical pathology or histopathology findings and therefore considered not to be indicative  of toxicity from S-ABA.

	In conclusion, under the conditions of this study, the No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) was considered to be 20,000 ppm, the limit dose.

Developmental:  A Prenatal Developmental Toxicity study of S-Abscisic Acid was performed by orally gavage to 3 groups of 25 bred female Crl:CD(SD) rats once daily from gestation days 6 through 19.  Dosage levels were 500, 750 and 1000  mg/kg/day administered at a dosage volume of 10 mL/kg to all groups.

	All females in all groups survived to the scheduled necropsy on gestation day 20.  No test article-related clinical findings were noted in the 500 mg/kg/day group.  A transient mean body weight loss was noted in the 1000 mg/kg/day group on the first day of dose administration.  However, there was no corresponding reduction in food consumption noted in this group and mean body weight gains in this group were similar to the control group throughout the remainder of the treatment period.  Furthermore, the decrease was not of sufficient magnitude to affect the overall mean body weight gain when evaluated for the entire period or mean body weights throughout the study.  Therefore, the body weight loss on the first day of dose administration in the 1000 mg/kg/day group although considered test article-related was not indicative of an adverse change.

	There were no test-article-related macroscopic findings noted for females in any group at the scheduled necropsy.

	No test article-related effects were noted on intrauterine growth and survival or fetal morphology at any dosage level.

	Based on the lack of adverse test article-related effects on maternal animals and on prenatal development, a dosage level of 1000 mg/kg/day (expressed as active moiety) was considered to be the no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) for maternal toxicity and prenatal developmental toxicity when S-Abscisic Acid was administered orally by gavage to pregnant Crl:CD(SD) rats.]

<D. Aggregate Exposure>

<	1. Dietary exposure. [ABA is a natural biochemical plant growth regulator present in all vascular plants, algae and some fungi.  It is naturally present in fruits and vegetables at various levels, generally not in excess of 10 ppm, and has always been a component of any diet containing plant materials.  The proposed uses of this product are not expected to results in residues in or on crops, above the natural background levels typically found in other commonly consumed fruits and vegetables.]>

<	i. Food. [Residues of ABA applied to grapes can be expected to rapidly dissipate to levels consistent with those observed naturally.  Data submitted confirm ABA’s dissipation through rapid metabolism, photo-isomerization, and rapid degradation.  Because of its ability to dissipate rapidly, ABA, when used in accordance with the terms of the EUP, is not expected to results in residues in or on listed crops, above the natural background levels typically found in other commonly consumed fruits or vegetables.  As mentioned above, it is noted that ABA is already commonly consumed.  It is naturally present in fruits and vegetables at various levels (up to 10 ppm) and has always been a component of any diet containing plant materials.]>

<	ii. Drinking water. [Applications are expected to be made using a maximum rate of 2000 ppm using a maximum of 200 gallons per acre.  Due to this low concentration and volume of application solution, leaching into groundwater is unlikely.  Accidental application to lakes or steams is unlikely.  However, even if ABA leached into groundwater, data show that ABA is rapidly metabolized and photo-isomerized, further diminishing the likelihood of any extra-normal ABA residues being transferred to water.  Data also show ABA is naturally present in water.  Residues resulting from the application of ABA to the listed crops are not expected to result in any significant drinking water exposure beyond natural background levels of ABA already present in water.]>

<	2. Non-dietary exposure. [The only non-dietary ABA exposure potential would be to applicators.  Repeat dermal exposure was shown to not have a toxic or deleterious response and inhalation exposure from typical agricultural applications would be limited.  In addition, the protective measures prescribed by the product’s label are expected to minimize exposure and protect applicators during the label use of ABA.  The low application rate, low toxicity and proposed use of ABA are not likely to result in chronic exposure of workers or the public to ABA at levels above what might be expected through natural occurrence.]>

<E. Cumulative Effects>

-

A

B

T

U

-

>

?

@

B

C

D

Q

R

S

U

V

W

|

}

~

Œ

Ž

”

•

³

´

¶

·

á

â

B*

B*

¨

©

Ô

Õ

ú

6

7

¥

¦

§

¨

©

ª

«

¾

¿

È

É

Ó

Ø

Ù

ú

B*

B*

B*

ఀܪ栖䩰䨰"࠼喁Ĉ⪐ᘊ灨聊　≊ᔀú

ý

B*

B*

摧漊çЀ1摧粚

B*

B*

ఀܪ栖粚

ఀܪ栖粚

B*

B*

摧所/Ѐ1摧粚

, vegetables or any plant product, a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substance is not relevant.  ABA has shown no toxicity in any testing.]>

<F. Safety Determination>

<	1. U.S. population. [NA-Remove.]>

<	2. Infants and children. [NA-Remove.]>

<G. Effects on the Immune and Endocrine Systems>

<	[NA-Remove.]>

<H. Existing Tolerances>

<	[NA-Remove.]>

<I. International Tolerances>

<	[NA-Remove.]>

 PAGE

 PAGE   2


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 208 (Thursday, October 27, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66737-66739]
[FR Doc No: 2011-27755]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2011-0737]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the
U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding Information Collection Requests (ICRs),
abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of a
revision to the following collections of information: 1625-0032, Vessel
Inspection Related Forms and Reporting Requirements Under Title 46 U.S.
Code.; 1625-0094, Ships Carrying Bulk Hazardous Liquids; and 1625-0096,
Report of Oil or Hazardous Substance Discharge; and Report of
Suspicious Maritime Activity. Our ICRs describe the information we seek
to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only
impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before
November 28, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2011-0737] to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and/or to OIRA. To avoid
duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following means:
    (1) Online: (a) To Coast Guard docket at http://www.regulations.gov. (b) To OIRA by e-mail via<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Mail: (a) DMF (M-30), DOT, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,

Washington, DC 20590-0001. (b) To OIRA, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503, attention Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.
    (3) Hand Delivery: To DMF address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is
202-366-9329.
    (4) Fax: (a) To DMF,<PHONE_NUMBER>. (b) To OIRA at<PHONE_NUMBER>. To
ensure your comments are received in a timely manner, mark the fax,
attention Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.
    The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and
material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in
this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the
docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12-140
on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Copies of the ICRs are available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
Commandant (CG-611), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S. Coast
Guard, 2100 2nd St., SW., Stop 7101, Washington DC 20593-7101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Kenlinishia Tyler, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for
questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on the docket.

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 Collections. There is
one ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether these ICRs should be
granted based on the Collections being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the
Collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
information subject to the Collections; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of the Collections on respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve
the ICRs referred to in this Notice.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the
OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number
of this request, [USCG 2011-0737], and must be received by November 28,
2011. We will post all comments received, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov. They will include any personal information you
provide. We have an agreement with DOT to use their DMF. Please see the
``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG-
2011-0737], indicate the specific section of the document to which each
comment applies, providing a reason for each comment. If you submit a
comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered
received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment.
If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered
as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the
DMF. We recommend you include your name, mailing address, an e-mail
address, or other contact information in the body of your document so
that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
    You may submit comments and material by electronic means, mail,
fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under ADDRESSES, but please
submit them by only one means. To submit your comment online, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, and type ``USCG-2011-0737'' in the
``Keyword'' box. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery,
submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by
mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period
and will address them accordingly.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this Notice as
being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, click
on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted in
blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2011-0737'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit the DMF in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
    OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice
of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB
Control Numbers: 1625-0032, 16225-0094 and 1625-0096.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received in
dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act statement
regarding Coast Guard public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of
the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The
Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (76 FR 52336, August 22, 2011)
required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments.

Information Collection Request

    1. Title: Vessel Inspection Related Forms and Reporting
Requirements Under Title 46 U.S. Code.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0032.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Respondents: Owners, operators, agents and masters of vessels.
    Abstract: This collection of information requires owners,
operators, agents or masters of certain inspected vessels to obtain
and/or post various forms as part of the Coast Guard's Commercial
Vessel Safety Program.
    Forms: CG-841, CG-854, CG-948, CG-949, CG-950, CG-950A, CG-2832.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from 1,686
hours to 1,601 hours a year.

    2. Title: Ships Carrying Bulk Hazardous Liquids.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0094.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Respondents: Owners and operators of chemical tank vessels.
    Abstract: This information is needed to ensure the safe transport
of bulk hazardous liquids on chemical tank vessels and to protect the
environment from pollution.
    Forms: CG-4602B, CG-5148, CG-5148A, CG-5148B and CG-5461.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 3,410
hours to 5,291 hours a year.
    3. Title: Report of Oil or Hazardous Substance Discharge; and
Report of Suspicious Maritime Activity.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0096.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Respondents: Persons-in-charge of a vessel or onshore/offshore
facility; owners or operators of vessels or facilities required to have
security plans; and the public.
    Abstract: Any discharge of oil or a hazardous substance must be
reported to the National Response Center (NRC) so that the pre-
designated on-scene coordinator can be informed and appropriate spill
mitigation action carried out. The NRC also receives suspicious
activity reports from the public and disseminates this information to
appropriate entities.
    Forms: None.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from 13,017
hours to 12,098 hours a year.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
chapter 35, as amended.

     Dated: October 21, 2011.
R.E. Day,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Command,
Control, Communications, Computers and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. 2011-27755 Filed 10-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: October 21, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 204)]
[Notices]
[Page 62493-62494]
[DOCID:fr21oc08-47]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-19-000; EL09-1-000]

ISO New England Inc.; Braintree Electric Light Department; Notice
of Filing

October 14, 2008.
    Take notice that on October 1, 2008, ISO New England Inc. (ISO) and
Braintree Electric Light Department (BELD) filed an executed non-
conforming Standard Large Generator Interconnection Agreement, Original
Service Agreement No. LGIA-ISONE/BELD-08-01, under Schedule 22 of the
ISO New England Inc's Open Access Transmission Tariff and a Petition of
Declaratory Order, pursuant to section 205 of the Federal Power Act and
Rule 207 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Commission.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on October 31, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-24955 Filed 10-20-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P