Kathy Kaufman/ RTP/ USEPA/ US 06/ 10/ 2005 09: 35 AM To afraas@ omb. eop. gov, aflynn@ omb. eop. gov cc Jeff Holmstead/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Joe Paisie/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Lydia Wegman/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Todd Hawes/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Bill Wehrum/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Linda Chappell/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Larry Sorrels/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA Subject Re: BART preamble Art  as you requested, here's the last version of the preamble we had in April. I've excised the two sections that we have recently rewritten (" cause or contribute" and " metric for visibility degradation").

Please note that the Administrative sections at the end are not there  we had never attached them, because the RIA was still under negotiation. I know you've got all the RIA information anyway, so there would be no information in those sections that you haven't already got, but I will check with Linda Chappell anyway to see what she's got drafted. I don't know whether she is in today.

Thanks.

Kathy Kaufman EPA/ OAQPS Mail Code C504 02 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Phone 919 541 0102 Fax 919 541 5489 Bill Wehrum/ DC/ USEPA/ US 06/ 10/ 2005 09: 01 AM To Lydia Wegman/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc Jeff Holmstead/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Joe Paisie/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Kathy Kaufman/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA Subject Re: BART preamble Kathy  Please also copy me on whatever you send to OMB. Thanks.

Lydia Wegman/ RTP/ USEPA/ US 06/ 09/ 2005 10: 38 PM To Jeff Holmstead/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Joe Paisie/ RTP/ USEPA/ US, Kathy Kaufman/ RTP/ USEPA/ US, Bill Wehrum/ DC/ USEPA/ US cc Subject Re: BART preamble Thanks for that update Jeff. Todd and I are planning to come up for the briefing for Steve, so we and the other folks can meet with you after the ED meeting, around noon, or whenever is convenient for you.

Kathy, could you please send to Art the rest of the preamble, with all the changes we've made since he last saw it? Please cc me when you send it to him. Thanks a lot.  Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld From: Jeff Holmstead Sent: 06/ 09/ 2005 09: 37 PM To: Lydia Wegman; Joe Paisie; Kathy Kaufman; Bill Wehrum Subject: BART preamble We're close to agreement on the Guidelines, and I think we're in pretty good shape. The big issue is still the highest day in 5 years vs. 99th percentile vs. something else. I need to speak with John tomorrow. We should probably plan to get together by phone around noon or shortly after to compare notes.

When I spoke to Art this evening, he said he would like to take another look at the rest of the preamble  everything other than the " subject to BART" section. Could someone please send Art and Amy the rest of the current preamble to Art in the morning.

Art said that the RIA looked good, although they have a few comments that they will give us tomorrow.  Forwarded by Kathy Kaufman/ RTP/ USEPA/ US on 06/ 12/ 2005 02: 26 PM

Kathy Kaufman/ RTP/ USEPA/ US 06/ 10/ 2005 02: 17 PM To aflynn@ omb. eop. gov, afraas@ omb. eop. gov cc Bill Wehrum/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Geoffrey Anderson/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Jeff Holmstead/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Joe Paisie/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Larry Sorrels/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Linda Chappell/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Lydia Wegman/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Todd Hawes/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, William Nickerson/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA Subject Re: BART guidelines PS  Art and Amy  I meant to add that we believe that there are no outstanding issues left on the guidelines.

Kathy Kaufman EPA/ OAQPS Mail Code C504 02 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Phone 919 541 0102 Fax 919 541 5489 Kathy Kaufman/ RTP/ USEPA/ US 06/ 10/ 2005 02: 15 PM To aflynn@ omb. eop. gov, afraas@ omb. eop. gov cc Bill Wehrum/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Jeff Holmstead/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Joe Paisie/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Larry Sorrels/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Linda Chappell/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Lydia Wegman/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Todd Hawes/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, William Nickerson/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Geoffrey Anderson/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA Subject BART guidelines Art  here's the latest version of the BART guidelines, as we left it in April. I've excised the section on " subject to BART" that you are discussing separately.

Thanks.

Kathy Kaufman EPA/ OAQPS Mail Code C504 02 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Phone 919 541 0102 Fax 919 541 5489


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 229 (Thursday, November 30, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56735-56739]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25832]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0600; FRL-9968-95]

Boscalid; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of
boscalid in or on vegetable, legume, edible-podded subgroup 6A. BASF
Corporation requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective November 30, 2017. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before January 29, 2018,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0600, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers

determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected
entities may include:
     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-2016-0600 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
January 29, 2018. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0600, 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 July 26, 2017 (82 FR 34664) (FRL-9963-
50), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
6E8503) by BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Drive, P.O. Box 13528, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27709. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.589 be
amended by increasing the existing tolerance for residues of the
fungicide boscalid, 3-pyridinecarboxamide,2-chloro-N-(4'-chloro[1,1'-
biphenyl]-2-yl), in or on vegetable, legume, edible podded subgroup 6A
at from 1.6 parts per million (ppm) to 5.0 ppm. This document
referenced a summary of the petition prepared by BASF 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 boscalid including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with boscalid follows.

A. Toxicological Profile and Points of Departure

    In the Federal Register of March 18, 2015 (80 FR 14009) (FRL-9921-
01), EPA published a final rule concerning tolerances for residues of
boscalid. The preamble to that rule contains a summary of the
toxicological profile and endpoints for assessing risk that EPA is
incorporating by reference here, as those elements have not changed.

B. Exposure Assessment

    The petitioned-for tolerance increase is intended to facilitate
imports of commodities in subgroup 6A, rather than accommodate residues
resulting from changes in domestic uses; therefore, the only potential
impact on the Agency's previous exposure assessment is through
consumption of imported food containing boscalid residues. To assess
the new dietary exposure levels, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing boscalid tolerances
in 40 CFR 180.589. EPA assessed dietary exposures from boscalid in food
as follows:
    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 boscalid; therefore, a
quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.
    Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used food consumption information from the 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). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed
tolerance-level residues and used some percent crop treated (PCT)
information as described below.
    Cancer. As discussed in Unit III.A. of the March 18, 2015 Federal
Register, EPA has concluded that the chronic endpoint will be
protective of potential cancer effects. EPA's estimate of chronic
exposure as described above is relied upon to evaluate whether any
exposure could exceed the chronic population

adjusted doses (cPAD) and thus pose a cancer risk.
    Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data on
the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary risk
only if:
     Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a
valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop
is likely to contain the pesticide residue.
     Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group.
     Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food
consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not
understate exposure for the population in such area.
    In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any
estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate
of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require
registrants to submit data on PCT.
    The Agency used the following chronic PCT for existing uses:
    Almonds 45%; apples 15%; apricots 30%; green beans 5%; blueberries
35%; broccoli 2.5%; brussels sprouts 2.5%; cabbage 5%; caneberries 45%;
cantaloupes 5%; carrots 20%; cauliflower 2.5%; celery 10%; cherries
50%; chicory 5%; cucumbers 5%; dry beans/dry peas 5%; garlic 5%; grapes
30%; hazelnuts 5%; lemons 2.5%; lettuce 30%; nectarines 15%; onions
25%; oranges 1%; peaches 25%; peanuts 1%; pears 20%; green peas 1%;
peppers 2.5%; pistachios 30%; plums/prunes 5%; potatoes 25%; pumpkins
10%; squash 5%; strawberries 60%; sweet corn 1%; tomatoes 2.5%; walnuts
5%; and watermelons 25%.
    In most cases, EPA uses available data from the United States
Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service
(USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and the National Pesticide Use
Database for the chemical/crop combination for the most recent six
years. EPA uses an average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis and a
maximum PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The average PCT figure for
each existing use is derived by combining available public and private
market survey data for that use, averaging across all observations, and
rounding to the nearest 5%, except for those situations in which the
average PCT is less than 2.5%. The maximum PCT figure is the highest
observed maximum value reported within the most recent 6 years of
available public and private market survey data for the existing use
and rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5%, except for situations in
which the maximum PCT is less than 2.5%. In cases where the estimated
value is less than 2.5% but greater than 1%, the average and maximum
PCT used are 2.5%. If the estimated value is less than 1%, 1% is used
as the average PCT and 2.5% is used as the maximum PCT.
    The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed above have
been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates are derived from
Federal and private market survey data, which are reliable and have a
valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that the percentage of
the food treated is not likely to be an underestimation. As to
Conditions b and c, regional consumption information and consumption
information for significant subpopulations is taken into account
through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating the exposure of
significant subpopulations including several regional groups. Use of
this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment process ensures
that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate exposure for any
significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency to be reasonably
certain that no regional population is exposed to residue levels higher
than those estimated by the Agency. Other than the data available
through national food consumption surveys, EPA does not have available
reliable information on the regional consumption of food to which may
be applied in a particular area.
    Because this tolerance increase does not impact drinking water or
residential exposures, the drinking water and non-dietary exposure
discussions from the March 18, 2015 Federal Register continue to be
valid. Those assumptions were used to assess aggregate exposure for
this tolerance action, and EPA incorporates them here by reference.
Moreover, the current action does not impact the Agency's previous
conclusions on cumulative effects; therefore, EPA incorporates the
cumulative effects section from the March 18, 2015 Federal Register as
well.

C. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality
Protection Act (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. Conclusion. The finding for the FQPA SF in the March 18, 2015
rule remains valid for this action. Therefore, for the reasons stated
in the March 18, 2015 Federal Register, 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 all
scenarios, except residential handler inhalation exposure.

D. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). 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,
boscalid 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
boscalid from food and water will utilize 12% of the cPAD for the
general U.S. population and 27% of the cPAD for all infants (less than
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 boscalid is not
expected.
    3. Short-term and intermediate-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).
    Boscalid is currently registered for uses that could result in
short-term residential exposure, which the Agency

previously assessed and discussed in the March 18, 2015 Federal
Register. The preamble to the March 18, 2015 rule concluded that there
were no short-term risks of concern. Because the chronic dietary
exposure has only increased potential chronic risk 1% of the cPAD to
27% of the cPAD, which is still well below EPA's level of concern for
chronic risk, and there is no change to the domestic use pattern to
impact the non-occupational exposure, EPA concludes that the increase
in dietary exposure will not meaningfully impact the aggregate risk and
the short-term risk will continue to be below the Agency's levels of
concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level).
    An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however,
boscalid is not registered for any use patterns that would result in
intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term risk is
assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term residential
exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under
the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as
the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no further assessment
of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic
dietary risk assessment for evaluating intermediate-term risk for
boscalid.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. As discussed in Unit
III.A. of the March 18, 2015 Federal Register, EPA has concluded that
the cPAD is protective of possible cancer effects. Given the results of
the chronic risk assessment, cancer risk resulting from exposure to
boscalid is not of concern.
    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 boscalid residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An adequate gas chromatography/mass spectrometric detection (GC/MS)
method (Method D0008) using selected ion monitoring (SIM) of major ions
is available for enforcing boscalid tolerances in plant commodities,
and an adequate GC/electron capture detection method (ECD) (Method DFG
S19) is available for enforcing the tolerances in livestock
commodities. The validated limit of quantitation (LOQ) for boscalid
residues in most plant matrices is 0.05 ppm. These methods have been
found adequate by the Analytical Chemistry Branch (ACB) of BEAD.
Residues of boscalid and its metabolite M510F01 were not adequately
recovered using the multiresidue methods.
    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 protected].

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.
    The Codex has established MRLs for boscalid in or on vegetable,
legume, edible-podded subgroup 6A at 3.0 ppm. These MRLs are different
than the tolerances established for boscalid in the United States. The
registrant has petitioned the EPA to increase the existing tolerance
level for edible-podded legume vegetable subgroup 6A from 1.6 ppm to
5.0 ppm in order to harmonize with MRL established by the European
Union of 5.0 ppm. This is not anticipated to cause a trade irritant
since the CODEX MRL will be lower than the U.S. tolerance, and CODEX
countries will still be able to export to the U.S. For these reasons,
EPA has determined it is appropriate to amend the tolerance for
residues of boscalid on edible podded legume vegetable subgroup 6A as
petitioned from 1.6 ppm to 5.0 ppm.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, a tolerance is established for residues of boscalid,
boscalid, 3-pyridinecarboxamide,2-chloro-N-(4'-chloro[1,1'-biphenyl]-2-
yl), in or on vegetable, legume, edible podded subgroup 6A at 5.0 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action amends 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), Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), or Executive Order 13771,
entitled ``Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs'' (82
FR 9339, February 3, 2017). This action does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175,

entitled ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this
action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty
or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: October 5, 2017.
Daniel Kenny,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.589, revise the entry for ``Vegetable, legume, edible
podded subgroup 6A'' in the table in paragraph (a)(1) to read as
follows:

Sec.  180.589  Boscalid; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *

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

                                * * * * *
Vegetable, legume, edible podded subgroup 6A................         5.0

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-25832 Filed 11-29-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 17, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 179)]
[Notices]
[Page 47795-47796]
[DOCID:fr17se09-39]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0703; FRL-8438-2]

Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee; Notice of Public Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, EPA gives
notice of a public meeting of the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee
(PPDC) on October 14-15, 2009. A draft agenda is under development that
will include reports from and discussions about current issues from the
following PPDC work groups: Work Group on 21st Century Toxicology/New
Integrated Testing Strategies; Work Group on Web-Distributed Labeling;
and Work Group on Comparative Safety Statements for Pesticide Product
Labeling. Discussion topics will also cover NPDES permit issues
regarding pesticides; and current Endangered Species Act issues.
Several PPDC work group meetings are scheduled in September and October
2009, and are open to the public. These include the PPDC PRIA Process
Improvements Work Group meeting on October 1, 2009, and meetings of
each of the above-mentioned three PPDC work groups on October 13, 2009,
and other listed dates. A webcast covering NPDES issues in preparation
for the PPDC meeting is being scheduled for October 7, 2009.
Information about all of these meetings can be found on EPA's website
at: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc.

DATES: The PPDC meeting will be held on Wednesday, October 14, 2009,
from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and Thursday, October 15, 2009, from 9 a.m.
to 12:15 p.m.
    To request accommodation of a disability, please contact the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATON CONTACT, preferably at least 10
days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to
process your request.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in the Conference Center on the
lobby level at EPA's location at 1 Potomac Yard South, 2777 S. Crystal
Drive, Arlington, VA. This location is approximately one mile from the
Crystal City Metro Station.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Margie Fehrenbach, Office of
Pesticide Programs (7501P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703) 308-4775; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail 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
particular interest to persons who work in agricultural settings or
persons who are concerned about implementation of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA); and the amendments to both of these
major pesticide laws by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996;
and the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act. Potentially affected
entities may include, but are not limited to: Agricultural workers and
farmers; pesticide industry and trade associations; environmental,
consumer, and farmworker groups; pesticide users and growers; pest
consultants; State, local and Tribal governments; academia; public
health organizations; food processors; and the public. If you have
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under
docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0703. Although a part
of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Publicly available docket materials are
available either in the electronic docket at http://
www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the Office
of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One
Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Drive Arlington, VA. The
hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket
Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr.
    A draft agenda is being developed and will be posted by September
25, 2009, on EPA's website at: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc.

II. Background

    EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) is entrusted with the
responsibility to help ensure the safety of the American food supply,
the education and protection from unreasonable risk of those who apply
or are exposed to pesticides occupationally or through use of products,
and general protection of the environment and special ecosystems from
potential risks posed by pesticides.
    The Charter for the EPA's PPDC was established under the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463, in September 1995,
and has been renewed every 2 years since that time. PPDC's Charter was
renewed November 2, 2007, for another 2-year period. The purpose of
PPDC is to provide advice and recommendations to the EPA Administrator
on issues associated with pesticide regulatory development and reform
initiatives, evolving public policy and program implementation issues,
and science issues associated with evaluating and reducing risks from
use of pesticides. It is determined that PPDC is in the public interest
in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the Agency by
law. The following sectors are represented on the PPDC: Pesticide
industry and trade associations; environmental/public interest,
consumer, and animal rights groups; farm worker organizations;
pesticide user, grower, and commodity groups; Federal and State/local/
Tribal governments; the general public; academia; and public health
organizations.
    Copies of the PPDC Charter are filed with appropriate committees of
Congress and the Library of Congress and are available upon request.

III. How Can I Request to Participate in this Meeting?

    PPDC meetings are open to the public and seating is available on a
first-come basis. Persons interested in attending do not need to
register in advance of the meeting. Comments may be made during the
public comment session of each meeting or in writing to the address
listed under For Further Information Contact.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Agricultural workers, Agriculture,
Chemicals, Endangered Species, Foods, Pesticide labels, Pesticides and
pests, Public health.

    Dated: September 11, 2009.
Steve Bradbury,
Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. E9-22424 Filed 9-16-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 121 (Monday, June 28, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 34000]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13746]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP21-900-000.
    Applicants: Destin Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Destin Pipeline--Negotiated
Rate Agreement Filing to be effective 6/21/2021.
    Filed Date: 6/21/21.
    Accession Number: 20210621-5018.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/6/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-901-000.
    Applicants: Fieldwood Energy LLC, Fieldwood Energy Offshore LLC,
Fieldwood Energy SP LLC, Mako Buyer LLC.
    Description: Joint Petition for Limited Waiver of Capacity Release
Regulations, et al. of Fieldwood Energy LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 6/21/21.
    Accession Number: 20210618-5114.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/28/21.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 22, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-13746 Filed 6-25-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 4, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 214)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 65554-65556]
[DOCID:fr04no08-17]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 75

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0800; FRL-8737-5]
RIN 2060-AP39

Stay of the Effectiveness of Requirements for Air Emission
Testing Bodies

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to stay the effectiveness of
requirements for air emission testing bodies.
    On January 24, 2008, final amendments to regulations on competency
requirements for air emission testing bodies (AETBs) were published in
the Federal Register. The AETB provision generally requires stack
testers and stack testing companies to meet certain minimum competency
requirements described in ASTM D 7036 by January 1, 2009.
    On March 25, 2008, the Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) filed a
Petition for Review primarily claiming that EPA could not by the AETB
requirement hold utilities responsible for something they cannot
control. While EPA is considering revisions to the requirements to
address UARG's concerns, it cannot propose and complete any such
revision through notice and comment rulemaking before the compliance
date contained in the existing rule, thus necessitating this action.
EPA needs to complete this action staying effectiveness of the AETB
requirements in order to secure an extension of an Order Granting
Abeyance of Further Proceedings which expires on October 29, 2008, when
the Agency must file Motions to Govern Further Proceedings.

DATES: Effective on November 4, 2008, in Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 75,
the effectiveness of Section 6.1.2(a) through (c) is stayed
indefinitely.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0800. All documents in the docket are listed in the
Federal Docket Management System index at http://www.regulations.gov.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically through
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation
Docket, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460. 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 Air and Radiation Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Schakenbach, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Clean Air Markets Division, MC 6204J, Ariel Rios
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, telephone
(202) 343-9158, e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Electronic copies
of this document can be accessed through the EPA Web site at: http://
epa.gov/airmarkets.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Regulated Entities. Entities regulated by this action primarily are
fossil fuel-fired boilers, turbines, and combined cycle units that
serve generators that produce electricity for sale or cogenerate
electricity for sale and steam. Regulated categories and entities
include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Examples of
          Category                 NAICS code            potentially
                                                    regulated industries
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry....................  221112 and others...  Electric service
                                                     providers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities which EPA is now aware
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in this table could also be regulated. To determine whether
your facility, company, business, organization, etc., is regulated by
this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions
in Sec. Sec.  72.6, 72.7, and 72.8 of title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Judicial Review. Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of
this final rule is available only by filing a petition for review in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on or
before January 5, 2009. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this
rule for the purposes of judicial review, does not extend the time
within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and does not
postpone the effectiveness of this rule. Under CAA section 307(b)(2),
the requirements established by this rule may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to
enforce these requirements.
    Outline. The following outline is provided to aid in locating
information in this preamble.

I. Overview
II. Administrative Procedures Used in This Action
III. Staying the Effectiveness of Requirements for Air Emission
Testing Bodies
    A. Rule revision staying the effectiveness of requirements for
air emission testing bodies
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. Overview

    On January 24, 2008, final amendments to 40 CFR part 75 on
competency requirements for air emission testing bodies (AETBs) were
published in the Federal Register (See 73 FR 4365, 4367, and 4372). The
AETB provision generally requires stack testers and stack testing
companies to meet certain minimum competency requirements described in
ASTM D 7036 by January 1, 2009.

    On March 25, 2008, the Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) filed a
Petition for Review primarily claiming that EPA could not by the AETB
requirement hold utilities responsible for something they cannot
control. While EPA is considering revisions to the requirements to
address UARG's concerns, it cannot propose and complete any such
revision through notice and comment rulemaking before the compliance
date contained in the existing rule, thus necessitating this action.
EPA needs to complete this action staying effectiveness of the AETB
requirements in order to secure an extension of an Order Granting
Abeyance of Further Proceedings which expires on October 29, 2008, when
the Agency must file Motions to Govern Further Proceedings.
    EPA believes that this rulemaking qualifies for the ``good cause''
exemption under section 553(b)(3)(B) of the APA. EPA has determined
that prior proposal and opportunity for comment are unnecessary because
the public is not likely to be particularly interested, and notice and
opportunity for comment were previously provided for the AETB provision
(see, proposed rule 71 FR 49300, August 22, 2006).
    EPA believes that this rulemaking qualifies for the ``good cause''
exemption to make the rule effective immediately under section 553(d)
of the APA because it is a relaxation of a restriction by staying the
effectiveness of requirements for air emission testing bodies.

II. Administrative Procedures Used in This Action

    Under CAA section 307(d)(1)(S), this action revising the Acid Rain
Program rules is subject to the requirements of CAA section 307(d).
Section 307(d)(3) provides that a notice of proposed rulemaking,
providing an opportunity for a public hearing and comment, must be
published in the Federal Register, except under certain circumstances,
as provided in the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). Two
examples of where the requirement for such a notice does not apply are:
(1) The public is not likely to be particularly interested; and (2)
notice and opportunity for comment were previously provided (See 5
U.S.C. 553(b)(B)).
    EPA finds, for the following reasons, that notice and opportunity
for public hearing and comment concerning the stay of effectiveness of
requirements for air emission testing bodies is not required because
(1) the public is not likely to be particularly interested because of
the relatively minor nature of this rulemaking action; and (2) notice
and opportunity for comment were previously provided for the AETB
provision (see, proposed rule 71 FR 49300, August 22, 2006). As
discussed above, this rule revision was finalized--after notice and
opportunity for comment--on January 24, 2008.
    In addition, EPA also finds that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C.
553(d) to make this final rule--staying the effectiveness of
requirements for air emission testing bodies--immediately effective
upon publication in the Federal Register. As explained above, the final
rule provides a relaxation of a requirement by staying the
effectiveness of requirements for air emission testing bodies.

III. Staying the Effectiveness of Requirements for Air Emission Testing
Bodies

    In this final rule, EPA is staying the effectiveness of
requirements for air emission testing bodies.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993)) and is
therefore not subject to review under the Executive Order. In this
action, EPA is simply staying the effectiveness of requirements for air
emission testing bodies that were previously issued and would have
become effective on January 1, 2009.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This action does not impose any
new information collection burden because it is simply staying the
effectiveness of requirements for AETBs.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This final rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA), which generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis for any rule that will have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only
to rules subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) or any other statute. This rule
is not subject to notice and comment requirements under the APA or any
other statute, because although the rule is subject to the APA, the
Agency has invoked the ``good cause'' exemption under 5 U.S.C. 553(b),
therefore it is not subject to the notice and comment requirement.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or
tribal governments or the private sector [The term ``enforceable duty''
does not include duties and conditions in voluntary Federal contracts
for goods and services.] Therefore, this action is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
    This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203
of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This rule simply
stays the effectiveness of requirements for air emission testing bodies
and therefore does not result in any additional expenditures to State,
local, and tribal governments or to the private sector. For the same
reasons, EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255 (Aug.
10, 1999)), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This rule simply stays the
effectiveness of requirements for air emission testing bodies that
would have become effective on January 1, 2009. Thus, Executive Order
13132 does not apply to this rule.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This rule simply
stays the effectiveness of requirements for air emission testing bodies
that would have become effective on January 1, 2009. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying
only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks,
such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the
potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO
13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended
to mitigate health or safety risks.

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

    This 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)), because it
is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C.
272 note), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This
rule simply stays the effectiveness of requirements for air emission
testing bodies that would have become effective on January 1, 2009.
Moreover, when first promulgated, the AETB provision required the use
of ASTM D 7036-04, an applicable voluntary consensus standard.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States. EPA has determined that this rule
will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it
does not change the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment, but simply stays the effectiveness of requirements for air
emission testing bodies that would have become effective on January 1,
2009. Moreover, when first promulgated, the AETB provision did not
change the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. Section 808 allows the issuing agency to make a rule
effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes
a good cause finding that notice and public procedure is impracticable,
unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. This determination must
be supported by a brief statement. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). As stated
previously, EPA has made such a good cause finding, including the
reasons therefor, and established that the effective date shall be upon
publication in the Federal Register. 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 75

    Environmental protection, Acid rain, Administrative practice and
procedure, Air pollution control, Electric utilities, Carbon dioxide,
Continuous emission monitoring, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
oxides, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Reference test methods.

    Dated: October 29, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

0
40 CFR part 75 is amended as follows:

PART 75--CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING

0
1. The authority citation for part 75 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Appendix A to Part 75--[Amended]

0
2. In Appendix A to Part 75, the effectiveness of Section 6.1.2(a)
through (c) is stayed indefinitely.

[FR Doc. E8-26264 Filed 11-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P