[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 9, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13179-13183]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04938]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2020-0400; EPA-R04-OAR-2020-0401; FRL-9274-02-R4]

Air Plan Approval; Georgia; Atlanta Area Emissions Inventory and
Emissions Statements Requirements for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing
approval of State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the
State of Georgia through the Georgia Environmental Protection Division
(GA EPD) on July 2, 2020, and November 4, 2021, to address the base
year emissions inventory requirements and emissions statements
requirements for the 2015 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) for the Atlanta, Georgia 2015 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area (hereinafter referred to as the ``Atlanta Area'').
These requirements apply to all ozone nonattainment areas in Georgia.
These actions are being taken pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or
Act).

DATES: This rule is effective April 8, 2022.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established dockets for these actions under Docket
Identification Nos. EPA-R04-OAR-2020-0400 and EPA-R04-OAR-2020-0401.
All documents in these dockets are listed on the www.regulations.gov
website. Although listed in the index for each docket, some information
may not be publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information
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 www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation

Branch, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
EPA requests that, if at all possible, you contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your
inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday
through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tiereny Bell, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61
Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is
(404) 562-9088. Ms. Bell can also be reached via electronic mail at
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On October 1, 2015, EPA strengthened the 8-hour ozone NAAQS,
lowering the level of the NAAQS from 0.075 parts per million (ppm) to
0.070 ppm. See 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).\1\ Effective August 3,
2018, EPA designated a seven-county area in and around metropolitan
Atlanta, consisting of Bartow, Clayton, Cobb, Dekalb, Fulton, Gwinnett,
and Henry Counties in Georgia, as a Marginal nonattainment area for the
2015 Ozone NAAQS. See 83 FR 25776 (June 4, 2018). Based on the
nonattainment designation, Georgia was required to develop a SIP
revision addressing certain CAA requirements for the Atlanta Area. The
revision must include, among other things, a comprehensive, accurate,
current inventory of actual emissions from all emissions sources in the
nonattainment area, known as a ``base year inventory,'' pursuant to CAA
section 182(a)(1) and emissions statements requirements pursuant to
section 182(a)(3)(B). On July 2, 2020, the State of Georgia, through GA
EPD, submitted SIP revisions addressing the base year emissions
inventory and emissions statements requirements related to the 2015 8-
hour ozone NAAQS for the Atlanta Area.\2\ Subsequently, Georgia
submitted an updated SIP revision on November 4, 2021, further
addressing the emissions statements requirements.\3\ The SIP revision
addressing the emissions statements requirements included modifications
to Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(6)(a)4.(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The 2015 Ozone NAAQS was promulgated on October 1, 2015,
published on October 26, 2015, and effective December 28, 2015.
    \2\ On July 2, 2020, GA EPD also submitted a SIP revision
providing a certification that existing SIP-approved Georgia rules
satisfy the permit program requirements found in section 172(c)(5)
of the CAA. EPA acted on this SIP revision in a separate rulemaking.
See 87 FR 3677 (January 25, 2022).
    \3\ On November 4, 2021, GA EPD also submitted a SIP revision
with changes to Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(rr), ``Gasoline Dispensing
Facility--Stage I''. EPA will act on that SIP revision in a separate
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 26, 2021, and subsequently on December 2, 2021, EPA
published Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRMs) proposing to approve
the July 2, 2020, SIP revision regarding the base year emissions
inventory and the July 2, 2020, and November 4, 2021, SIP revisions
regarding the emissions statements requirements for the Atlanta Area
for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 86 FR 67409 and 86 FR 68449. More
information on EPA's analysis of Georgia's July 2, 2020, and November
4, 2021, SIP revisions, and how these SIP revisions address the above-
mentioned requirements, are provided in EPA's November 26, 2021, and
December 2, 2021, NPRMs. Comments on EPA's November 26, 2021, NPRM were
due on December 27, 2021. EPA received two comments on EPA's November
26, 2021, NPRM.\4\ EPA's response is provided in Section II, below.
Comments on EPA's December 2, 2021, NPRM were due on or before January
3, 2022. No comments were received on EPA's December 2, 2021, NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPA received two anonymous comments, which displayed the
same email address, on the November 26, 2021, NPRM. Although EPA
received these comments separately, the contents of these comments
are duplicative in nature. In the ``Response to Comments'' section
below, EPA's ``Response'' addresses both comments received on
November 30, 2021. These comments are available in Docket No. EPA-
R04-OAR-2020-0400.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While EPA did not receive comments on the December 2, 2021, NPRM,
EPA is herein providing non-substantive clarifications on the December
2, 2021, NPRM. First, EPA would like to clarify that EPA received GA
EPD's draft SIP submittal in a July 2, 2020, SIP revision. EPA
subsequently received GA EPD's draft SIP revision supplementing the
original SIP submittal, along with a parallel processing request, on
July 1, 2021, through a letter dated June 28, 2021.
    Next, EPA notes that the following sentence in the December 2,
2021, NPRM, found in Section II, ``Analysis of State's Submittal,'' in
the first full paragraph of the first column on page 68451, should have
included Barrow, Carroll, Hall, Spalding, and Walton Counties. These
counties were inadvertently omitted from the December 2, 2021, NPRM in
the sentence that states: ``Georgia subsequently amended the
regulations to, among other things, include Bartow and Newton Counties
thereby covering the entire Atlanta Area.'' On November 27, 2009, EPA
approved a SIP revision that expanded the applicability of Georgia's
emissions statement requirements to include Barrow, Bartow, Carroll,
Hall, Newton, Spalding, and Walton Counties, which are part of the
Atlanta 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. See 74 FR 62249.
    Next, in Section III, ``Incorporation by Reference,'' of the
December 2, 2021, NPRM, on page 68451 in the third column in the second
sentence, EPA inadvertently did not include a period after the ``4''
when referencing GA EPD's rule 391-3-1-.02(6)(a)4.(iii). Throughout the
December 2, 2021, NPRM, the citation ``391-3-1-.02(6)(a)4(iii)'' should
have been ``391-3-1-.02(6)(a)4.(iii)'' everywhere it appears.
    Lastly, EPA notes a typographical error in the November 26, 2021,
NPRM. Specifically, in Section III, ``Analysis of State's Submittal,''
of the November 26, 2021, NPRM on page 67411, the NPRM states (emphasis
added): ``Georgia obtained emissions for the non-road mobile sources
from the 2014 NEI. Those emissions were estimated using EPA's National
Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM) with updated NMIM County Database (NCD)
files from GA EPD. A detailed account of non-road mobile sources can be
found in Appendix D of the July 2, 2020, submittal.'' Instead of
referencing ``EPA's National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM) with updated
NMIM County Database (NCD) files,'' EPA should have referenced EPA's
Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) model, and the above sentences
should have read (emphasis added), ``Georgia obtained emissions for the
non-road mobile sources from the 2014 NEI. Those emissions were
estimated using EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) model
for each ozone nonattainment county. A detailed account of non-road
mobile sources can be found in Appendix D of the July 2, 2020,
submittal.''

II. Response to Comments

    As mentioned above, on November 30, 2021, EPA received two comments
on the November 26, 2021, NPRM. These two comments are duplicative, so
EPA is responding to them as one comment. EPA's comment summary and
response are provided below.
    Comment: The commenter suggested that EPA's November 26, 2021, NPRM
is EPA's method of combating and regulating ozone ``by releasing ozone
in

Georgia.'' The commenter notes that ``the source'' provides a lot of
detail/information but expressed curiosity as to how the regulation of
ozone in Georgia would be executed and whether it would cause
significant changes in the State's air quality.
    Response: EPA finds the comments somewhat unclear. The rationale
for EPA's proposed action regarding Georgia's emissions inventory is
explained in the November 26, 2021, NPRM which includes an explanation
concerning the purpose of the emissions inventory for the Atlanta Area.
In the November 26, 2021, NPRM, EPA proposed approval of Georgia's SIP
revision to address the base year emissions inventory requirements for
the Atlanta Area. CAA section 182(a)(1) requires ozone nonattainment
areas classified as Marginal or above to submit a comprehensive,
accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of
nitrogen oxide (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) in
the nonattainment area. Contrary to what the comments may be implying,
EPA approval of this inventory does not result in ``releasing ozone''
or ozone precursors such as VOC or NOx. Further, EPA
approval of the inventory does not impose any regulations on any
sources. EPA is now determining that the July 2, 2020, SIP revision
meets the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(1). CAA section 182(a)(1)
and corresponding federal regulations cited in the NPRM outline the
emissions inventory requirements for areas designated as nonattainment
for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    EPA is unclear on how the commenter intended to use the term
``source.'' If the commenter's reference to ``the source'' means
sources that emit VOC and/or NOX within the Atlanta Area,
EPA agrees that the July 2, 2020, submittal included sufficient
emissions information from sources within the Atlanta Area that emit
NOX and VOC. If, instead, the commenter's reference to ``the
source'' means the NPRM, EPA agrees that the NPRM included sufficient
information about EPA's action.
    Regarding the commenter's question related to the execution of
regulating ozone in Georgia, the ozone standards are applied, or
implemented, by controlling air pollution from emission sources. The
CAA requires EPA to set NAAQS for certain pollutants, including ozone,
that are considered harmful to public health and the environment and
come from numerous and diverse sources. States are required under CAA
section 110(a) to submit infrastructure SIPs that implement, maintain,
and enforce new or revised NAAQS within three years of EPA issuing the
standard (or such shorter period as the EPA Administrator may
prescribe). Furthermore, each state that contains all or part of an
ozone nonattainment area is required to submit a SIP revision
addressing the requirements of CAA sections 172 and 182. In general,
the SIP consists of programs, including air quality monitoring, air
quality modeling, emission inventories, emission control strategies,
and documents (policies and rules) that the state uses to attain and
maintain the NAAQS. For further information on how Georgia regulates in
accordance with the CAA's requirements for the ozone standards, please
see several ozone regulations in the Georgia SIP online at https://www.epa.gov/sips-ga/epa-approved-nonregulatory-provisions-and-quasi-regulatory-measures-georgia-sip.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Georgia Rule
391-3-1-.02(6), Source Monitoring, Paragraph (a)4., Emission
Statements, state effective on October 25, 2021. EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the
person identified in the ``For Further Information Contact'' section of
this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have
been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated
by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable
under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the
final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by
reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Final Actions

    EPA is approving the aforementioned SIP revisions submitted by
Georgia on July 2, 2020, and November 4, 2021, addressing the base year
emissions inventory and the emissions statements requirements for the
2015 8-hour Ozone NAAQS for the Atlanta Area. EPA has determined that
the Atlanta Area base year emissions inventory and the emissions
statements requirements SIP revisions meet the requirements for the
2015 ozone NAAQS for the Atlanta Area.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. These actions merely
approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and do not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, these actions:
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not economically significant regulatory actions based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9,

2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing these actions and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. These actions are not ``major rules'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of these actions must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals
for the appropriate circuit by May 9, 2022. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of these actions for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule(s) or
action(s). These actions may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce their requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: February 28, 2022.
Daniel Blackman,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52
as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart (L)--Georgia

0
2. In Sec.  52.570:
0
a. In paragraph (c), amend the table by revising the entry for ``391-3-
1-.02(6)''; and
0
b. In paragraph (e), amend the table by adding an entry for ``Atlanta
Area Base Year Emissions Inventory for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS'' at the
end of the table.
    The revision and addition read as follows:

Sec.  52.570   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA Approved Georgia Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           State
        State citation              Title/subject     effective date    EPA approval date        Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
391-3-1-.02(6)................  Source Monitoring...        8/1/2013  7/28/2017, 82 FR      Except paragraph
                                                                       35108.                (a)4., approved on
                                                                                3/9/2022, with a
                                                                                State effective
                                                                                date of 10/25/2021.

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

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                 EPA Approved Georgia Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Applicable       State submittal
    Name of nonregulatory SIP        geographic or      date/ effective   EPA approval date       Explanation
            provision              nonattainment area        date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Atlanta Area Base Year Emissions  Bartow, Clayton,             7/2/2020  3/9/2022, [Insert
 Inventory for the 2015 Ozone      Cobb, Dekalb,                          citation of
 NAAQS.                            Fulton, Gwinnett,                      publication].
                                   and Henry Counties.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-04938 Filed 3-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 8, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20806-20807]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09718]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP18-37-000 and CP18-38-000]

Sierrita Gas Pipeline LLC; Notice of Schedule for Environmental
Review of the Sierrita Compressor Expansion Project

    On December 21, 2017, Sierrita Gas Pipeline LLC (Sierrita) filed an
application in Docket No. CP18-37-000 requesting a Certificate of
Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Section 7(c) of the
Natural Gas Act to construct and operate certain natural gas pipeline
facilities. Additionally, in Docket No. CP18-38-000, Sierrita is
requesting an amendment to its Section 3 authorization and its
Presidential Permit. The proposed project is known as the Sierrita
Compressor Expansion Project (Project), in which Sierrita would
increase the design capacity of existing Line No. 2177 to 627,000,000
cubic feet per day at its border crossing into Mexico in Pima County,
Arizona.
    On January 5, 2018, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Applications for the Project.
Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal
authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and
to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization
within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's
Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. This instant notice
identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the completion of the
EA for the Project.

Schedule for Environmental Review

Issuance of EA--June 13, 2018
90-Day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline--September 11, 2018

    If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be
provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the
Project's progress.

Project Description

    Sierrita proposes to construct in Pima County, Arizona one 15,900
horsepower compressor station, suction and discharge piping, and
ancillary facilities on its existing Line No. 2177; one 10-

inch meter at its existing San Joaquin Meter Station; as well as
relocate an existing mainline valve and pipeline inspection tool.

Background

    On February 2, 2018, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent to
Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Sierrita
Compressor Expansion Project and Request for Comments on Environmental
Issues (NOI). The NOI was sent to affected landowners; federal, state,
and local government agencies; elected officials; environmental and
public interest groups; Native American tribes; other interested
parties; and local libraries and newspapers. In response to the NOI,
the Commission received comments from Pima County (Office of
Sustainability & Conservation, the Regional Flood Control District, the
Development Services Department, and the Regional Wastewater
Reclamation Department); the Altar Valley Conservation Alliance; and
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The primary issues raised by
the commentors regarded purpose and need, alternatives, pipeline
safety, water resources, air quality, biological resources and invasive
species, hazardous materials, cultural resources, cumulative impacts,
restoration and post-construction monitoring, outdoor lighting, and
impacts on existing utility lines.

Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to
keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets,
the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can
reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by
automatically providing you with notification of these filings,
document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the
FERC website (www.ferc.gov). Using the eLibrary link, select General
Search from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date range and Docket
Number excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP18-37), and follow the
instructions. For assistance with access to eLibrary, the helpline can
be reached at<PHONE_NUMBER>, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at
[email protected]. The eLibrary link on the FERC website also
provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.

    Dated: May 1, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-09718 Filed 5-7-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

	OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY

	AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

MEMORANDUM

Date:   October 3, 2012

SUBJECT:	1-Naphthaleneacetic acid (NAA), its salts, ester, and acetamide
.  Expansions of Existing Crop Group/Representative Commodity Uses to
Fruit, Pome, Group 11-10 and New Uses in/on Avocado, Mango, Mamey
Sapote, and Rambuttan.  Summary of Analytical Chemistry and Residue
Data.

PC Code:  056002	DP Barcode:  399621

Decision No.: 461439	Registration Nos.:  5481-429 and 5481-541

Petition No.:  2E7991	Regulatory Action:  Amended Section 3

Risk Assessment Type:  NA	Case No.:  0379

TXR No.:  NA	CAS No.:  86-87-3

MRID Nos.:  48749901 and 02	40 CFR:  180.155

FROM:		Gary Otakie, Chemist

	Risk Assessment Branch 4

	Health Effects Division (7509P)

THROUGH:	Susan V. Hummel, Senior Scientist

				Elissa Reaves, PhD., Branch Chief

	Risk Assessment Branch 4

		Health Effects Division (7509P)

TO:			Thurston Morton, Risk Assessor

	Risk Assessment Branch 4

				Health Effects Division (7509P)

				And

				Laura Nollen/Barbara Madden

				Risk Integration, Minor Use & Emergency Response Branch

				Registration Division (7505P)

Action Requested

Under PP#2E7991, The Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) has
submitted a petition for the establishment of permanent tolerances for
residues of the plant growth regulator 1-Naphthaleneacetic acid (NAA) in
conjunction with requests for amended Section 3 registrations of  the
two pesticide formulations:  TRE-HOLD Sprout Inhibitor A112, and
Fruitone N.  The petitioner is proposing the establishment of the
following permanent tolerances for residues of NAA:

Avocado…..	0.05  ppm

Mango	0.05  ppm

Mamey Sapote                 …………………………………….
0.05 ppm

Rambuttan  ……………. …………………………………….
3.0  ppm

Fruit, pome, group 11- 10	………0.15  ppm

Discussion

1-Naphthaleneacetic acid (NAA), its salts, ester, and acetamide are
plant growth regulators (PGR) which are collectively referred to as
naphthalene acetates. The PGR activity of NAA is due to its structural
similarity to the natural plant hormone indole acetic acid (IAA). They
are currently registered for use on various orchard and fruit crops to
prevent preharvest drop of fruits, thin fruit trees, and delay flower
induction. They can also stimulate growth and delay leaf drop on
ornamentals.

New residue chemistry data on avocado and rambuttan were submitted to
support these uses, except for the Fruit, pome,  group 11-10, which is
an expansion of the current crop group tolerance on “Fruit, pome,
group 10”, and relies on existing residue data.

 Residues of NAA were below the LOQ (<0.05 ppm) in/on avocado harvested
9-11 days following either one or two paintbrush or sponge applications
of a 1.27-1.30% ai solution of the 15.1% EC formulation of NAA ethyl
ester.

Following one foliar directed application of the 3.5% SC formulation of
NAA sodium salt at 90 and 900 ppm (i.e. 1X and 10X), respectively,
residues (and per trial averages) of NAA in/on rambutan fruit harvested
at a 2-day PHI were 0.0786-0.636 (0.108-0.621) and 1.25-5.06 (1.35-4.95)
ppm.

There are an adequate number of avocado and rambuttan field trials with
acceptable field trial  data from representative geographical locations.

A tolerance level of 0.15 ppm, for Fruit, pome, group 11-10 is
appropriate to cover the  use of NAA on the Fruit group 11.  The
Organisation for Economic and Co-operation Development (OECD) Tolerance
Estimation Procedures were used to determine appropriate tolerance
levels for Rambuttan, while for avocado the tolerance is based of the
level of quantitation (0.05 ppm).  A tolerance of 2.0 ppm rather than
3.0 ppm is required for rambuttan. Note that this tolerance level is
different than that proposed by the petitioner who used NAFTA tolerance
estimation procedures.

Tolerances are established under 40CFR§180.155(a) for the combined
residues of 1-naphthaleneacetic acid and its conjugates calculated as
1-naphthaleneacetic acid from the application of 1-naphthaleneacetic
acid, its ammonium, sodium, or potassium salts, ethyl ester, and
acetamide in/on sweet cherry, fruit pome group 11, olive, orange,
pineapple, and tangerine.  A time-limited tolerance under
40CFR§180.155(b) is also established for avocado (expires 12/31/12) in
connection with a Section 18 emergency exemption.  The established
tolerances range from 0.05 ppm to 0.15 ppm.

The current tolerance expression for NAA is not in accord with our
current guidance.   See Conclusion below for appropriate wording.

Conclusion

  SEQ "CHAPTER" \*Arabic  1

In brief, a revised Section F proposing a tolerance of 2.0 ppm for NAA
in/on Rambuttan is required.

HED has examined the residue chemistry database for NAA..  With regards
to NAA for PP#2E7991, pending submission and revised Sections B and  F
(see requirements under Recommended Label Changes and Tolerance
Recommendations), there are no residue chemistry issues that would
preclude granting amended  registrations for amended Section 3
registrations of six pesticide formulations: containing NAA for use on a
variety of crops, and  to expand currently registered foliar uses or
establishment of tolerances for residues of NAA only in/on the following
commodities:

Avocado…..	0.05  ppm

Mango	0.05  ppm

Mamey Sapote                 …………………………………….
0.05 ppm

Rambuttan  ……………. …………………………………….
2.0  ppm

Fruit, pome, group 11-10	………0.15  ppm

The amended registrations are limited to expansions to add the
commodities specified under the new crop groups/subgroups and Avocado,
Mango, Mamey Sapote, Rambuttan and do not include substantive changes to
currently registered use patterns (i.e., maximum use rates, retreatment
intervals, preharvest intervals, use of adjuvants, etc.).

Tolerance Recommendations

A revised Section F is needed, proposing tolerances as follows:

Avocado…..	0.05  ppm

Mango	0.05  ppm

Mamey Sapote                 …………………………………….
0.05 ppm

Rambuttan  ……………. …………………………………….
2.0  ppm

Fruit, pome, group 11-10	………0.15  ppm

The current tolerance expression for NAA is not in accord with our
current guidance.  The tolerance expression should read:

Tolerances are established for the combined residues of
1-naphthaleneacetic acid, including its metabolites and degradates in/on
avocado at 0.05 ppm, mango at 0.05 ppm,  Mamey Sapote at 0.05 ppm,
Rambuttan at 2.0 ppm, and Fruit, pome, group 11 at 0.15 ppm.
Compliance with the tolerance levels specified is to be determined by
measuring only 1-naphthaleneacetic acid and its conjugates, calculated
as the Stoichiometric equivalent of 1-naphthaleneacetic acid, in or on
the commodity.

Recommended Label Changes.  The Fruitone L label must have a pounds per
gallon statement.  Aerial application must be made in a minimum of 10
gallons/acre.

A human health risk assessment is forthcoming.

Note to PM:

* Use information was taken from Section B of the petition. Only use
information for the proposed new uses on Avocado, Mango, Mamey Sapote
and Rambuttan were reviewed.  HED has not checked the labels to ensure
that use directions for currently registered uses have not been revised.
The PM must ensure that the use directions for the remaining commodities
have not changed since any changes required in the RED were made.

Tolerances should be revised, as needed, to reflect the correct
commodity definitions as specified in Table 10.

A human heath risk assessment is forthcoming.

Background

The chemical structure and nomenclature of -Naphthaleneacetic acid
(NAA), its salts, ester, and acetamide and the physicochemical
properties are presented in Tables 1 and 2.

Common name	NAA sodium salt	NAA ethyl ester

Molecular Formula	C12H10O2Na	C14H14O2

Molecular Weight	208.2	214.26

IUPAC name	sodium-2(1naphthyl)acetate	ethyl-2(1naphthyl)acetate

CAS name	1-Naphthaleneacetic acid, sodium salt	1-Naphthaleneacetic acid,
ethyl ester

CAS #	61-31-4	2122-70-5

PC Code	056007	056008

Table 2.  Physicochemical Properties of NAA1

Parameter	Value	Reference

Active Ingredient	NAA acetamide

Melting point/range	182-184 C	Farm Chemicals Handbook

pH of 1% aqueous suspension	5.1	Product CSF

Density or specific gravity	0.221 g/cm3	Product CSF

Water solubility  (20 C)	not available

	Solvent solubility (20 C)	not available

	Vapor pressure at 20 C	not available

	Dissociation constant (pKa)	not available

	Octanol/water partition coefficient (Kow)	not available

	UV/vis  absorption spectrum	not available

	Active ingredient	NAA

Melting point/range	130 C	Farm Chemicals Handbook

pH of 1% aqueous suspension	3.45	RD D265117, 5/15/00, B. Kitchens

Density or specific gravity	0.45 g/mL	CB Nos. 3468 and 3469, 6/3/88, F.
Suhre

Water solubility  (20 C)	0.042 g/100 mL	CB Nos. 3468 and 3469, 6/3/88,
F. Suhre

Solvent solubility (20 C)	xylene 5.5 g/100 mL

CCl4 1.06 g/100 mL

freely soluble in acetone, ether, and chloroform	CB Nos. 3468 and 3469,
6/3/88, F. Suhre

Farm Chemicals Handbook

Vapor pressure at 20 C	0.3 mm Hg at 26 C	CB Nos. 3468 and 3469, 6/3/88,
F. Suhre

Dissociation constant (pKa)	3.16 x 10-4	CB Nos. 3970 and 3971, 7/5/88,
F. Suhre

Octanol/water partition coefficient (Kow)	not applicable; polar compound

	UV/vis  absorption spectrum	not available

	Active ingredient	NAA sodium salt

Melting point/range	>300 C	CB Nos. 3468 and 3469, 6/3/88, F. Suhre

pH of 1% aqueous suspension	9.1	CB Nos. 3468 and 3469, 6/3/88, F. Suhre

Density or specific gravity	0.46 g/mL	CB Nos. 3468 and 3469, 6/3/88, F.
Suhre

Water solubility  (20 C)	340 g/100 mL	CB Nos. 3468 and 3469, 6/3/88, F.
Suhre

Solvent solubility (20 C)	insoluble in nonpolar solvents	CB Nos. 3468
and 3469, 6/3/88, F. Suhre

Vapor pressure at 20 C	not available

	Dissociation constant (pKa)	3.16 x 10-4	CB Nos. 3970 and 3971, 7/5/88,
F. Suhre

Octanol/water partition coefficient (Kow)	not applicable; polar compound

	UV/vis  absorption spectrum	not available

	Active ingredient	NAA ethyl ester

Boiling point/range	>150 C	Old unreviewed Union Carbide data

pH of 1% aqueous suspension	not available

	Density or specific gravity	1.11 at 20 C	Old unreviewed Union Carbide
data

Water solubility  (20 C)	insoluble	Old unreviewed Union Carbide data

Solvent solubility (20 C)	soluble in xylene, toluene, ethanol, acetone,
and methyl ethyl ketone	Old unreviewed Union Carbide data

Vapor pressure at 20 C	not available

	Dissociation constant (pKa)	not available

	Octanol/water partition coefficient (Kow)	not available

	UV/vis  absorption spectrum	not available

	1 No physicochemical properties information was available concerning
the NAA potassium and ammonium salts.

Directions for Use

The petitioner has submitted copies of the proposed labels for Tre-Hold
Sprout Inhibitor A-112 and Fruitone L.  Tre-Hold Sprout Inhibitor A-112
is a soluble concentrate formulation containing 15.1% NAA, ethyl ester
(1 lb/gal NAA).  Fruitone L is a soluble concentrate formulation
containing 3.5% NAA, sodium salt. The pounds per gallon statement is
missing. The proposed use directions are presented in Table 3 below.

Table 3.  Summary of Directions for Use of NAA, potassium and sodium
salts

Applic. Timing, Type, and Equip.	Formulation

	Applic. Rate

(lb ae/A)	Max. No. Applic. per Season	Max. Seasonal Applic. Rate

(lb ai/A)	PHI

(days)

Avocado, Mango, and Mamey Sapote

Foliar spray/

brush/sponge/ paint roller	TRE-Hold Sprout Inhibitor A-112, EPA Reg. No.
5481-429;

15.1 % NAA, ethyl ester (1 lb/ gal)	 0.078 lb ae/gal

 11 oz. product/gallon

(1.1% w/w)

two per year

10 days

	Use Directions and Limitations:  Prune and treat pruned branches and
limbs within a few days.  Apply an average of 3 fluid ounces mixture per
tree.  A minimum 45-day RTI is specified.  The REI is 12 hours.

Rambutan

Foliar spray	Fruitone L, EPA Reg No. 5481-541 (3.1 % NAA)	90 ppm
solution

	one per year

2 days

	Use Directions and Limitations:  Spray Rambuttan panicles to runoff.
The REI is 12 hours.

Fruit, Pome, Group 11-10

For chemical thinning: Foliar spray, Aerial	Fruitone L, EPA Reg No.
5481-541 (3.1 % NAA)	0.5 to 4.0 fl oz/100 gal	NS	NS	Fruit set

	Use Directions and Limitations:  Apply at petal fall and/or early fruit
set.  Ensure uniform spray coverage using tree row volume.  For ground
applications use up to 500 gal water per acre.  For aerial applications,
use 5-10 gallons of water per acre.  Directions provided for apples and
pears.  For other fruits in crop group, follow directions for thinning.

To control pre-harvest drop:  Foliar spray, Aerial	Fruitone L, EPA Reg
No. 5481-541 (3.1 % NAA)	0.11	NS	150 g/A	2 days

	Use Directions and Limitations:  Use sufficient water to ensure
coverage, by air a minimum of 5 gallons.  A typical application is 8-32
fl oz per acre, made 1-4 weeks prior to harvest.  If needed, repeat at
weekly intervals.  Directions provided for apples and pears.

Conclusion.  The proposed use directions are adequate to allow
evaluation of the residue data relative to the proposed uses.  The
Fruitone L label must have a pounds per gallon statement.  Aerial
application must be made in a minimum of 10 gallons/acre.

860.1300 Nature of the Residue – Plants

RED Residue Chemistry Chapter D299296, 10 MARCH 2004, G. Otakie

Acceptable apple and olive metabolism studies have been previously
submitted and reviewed.  Based on the nature of residues identified from
the apple and olive metabolism studies, HED has previously determined
that the terminal residues of concern in plants are the parent
compounds, NAA and its conjugates and that the qualitative nature of the
residues in plants (i.e., orchard trees) is adequately understood.   For
purposes of the current petition the nature of the residue in plants is
adequately understood.

860.1300 Nature of the Residue - Livestock

RED Residue Chemistry Chapter D299296, 10 MARCH 2004, G. Otakie

An acceptable goat metabolism study has been previously submitted and
reviewed.  Based on these data, HED has previously concluded that the
qualitative nature of the residue in ruminants is adequately understood.
The terminal residues of concern in ruminants are the parent compounds,
NAA and its conjugates.

The available ruminant metabolism data are adequate to support the
proposed uses. There are no poultry feed items associated with currently
registered or proposed food uses of NAA; thus a poultry metabolism study
is not required.

860.1340 Residue Analytical Methods

RED Residue Chemistry Chapter D299296, 10 MARCH 2004, G. Otakie

Enforcement and data collection methods: The residue analytical methods,
currently listed in Volume II of the Pesticide Analytical Methods, are
inadequate for the enforcement of tolerances for residues of
a-naphthaleneacetic acid (Pesticide Reg. Sec. 180.155) and
a-naphthaleneacetamide (Pesticide Reg. Sec. 180.309) in/on plant
commodities because these methods use benzene, a hazardous or toxic
reagent.

An HPLC method using fluorescence detection (Method NAA-AM-001) for
apples and peas and a similar method for olives and olive oil (Method
NAA-AM-002) has been previously submitted for determination of NAA in
plant commodities. These methods include extraction with water and
incorporate a basic hydrolysis step to release bound residues.  These
methods do not use benzene or diazomethane which are being discouraged
by the Agency for safety reasons. Theses methods have been subjected to
successful independent laboratory validations. Acceptable recoveries
were obtained from apples, olives and olive oil fortified with NAA at
the method LOQ (0.01 ppm) and at 1.0 ppm.  This method is suitable for
enforcement.

Avocado samples were analyzed using an HPLC/UV method adapted from Morse
Laboratories, Inc.  Analytical Method NAA-AM-003 entitled “Recommended
Analytical Residue Method for 1-Naphthaleneacetic Acid,
1-Naphthaleneacetamide, and/or 1-Naphthaleneacetic Acid Ethyl Ester, in
Grape (red and white), Grapefruit, Tomato, and Green Bell Pepper
Matrices”.  The method is a common moiety method that converts
residues of NAA acetamide and NAA ethyl ester to NAA.  A number of minor
modifications to the method were specified including changes in clean-up
procedures, reagents, and sample sizes.

Rambutan samples were analyzed using an HPLC method adapted from Morse
Laboratories, Inc. Analytical Method NAA-AM-003 entitled “Recommended
Analytical Residue Method for 1-Naphthaleneacetic Acid, 1
Naphthaleneacetamide, and/or 1-Naphthaleneacetic Acid Ethyl Ester, in
Grape (red and white), Grapefruit, Tomato, and Green Bell Pepper
Matrices”.  The method is a common moiety method that converts
residues of NAA acetamide and NAA ethyl ester to NAA.  A number of minor
modifications to the method were specified including changes in clean-up
procedures, reagents, and sample sizes.

860.1360 Multiresidue Methods

D232463, D294854, 30 OCT 2003, G. Otakie

Multiresidue method (MRM) data have been submitted previously in support
of the registration of NAA, its salts, ester and acetamide.
Naphthaleneacetamide was found to chromatograph satisfactorily using
Pesticide Analytical Manual (PAM) Vol. I, Section 302 DG 5.
Naphthaleneacetamide was found to produce a 50% full scale deflection
(FSD) with a 50 nanogram injection and the relative retention time to
chlorpyrifos is approximately 0.8. Average recoveries for
naphthaleneacetamide spiked into pears at approximately 0.1 ppm and 1.0
ppm were 97.8 and 104%, respectively, for Section 302, method E1,
without Florisil cleanup. Apple spikes using this procedure could not be
quantified due to interference in the apple matrix. Naphthaleneacetamide
was found not to be recoverable through Florisil, so it would not be
recoverable through Protocols E or F.  Therefore, testing under PAM Vol.
I Protocol E, for apples and pears, and Protocol F, for olives, was
suspended prior to recovery experiments through the entire Sections 303
and 304 methods.  FDA MRM’s are not suitable as enforcement methods
for NAA.

860.1380 Storage Stability

RED Residue Chemistry Chapter D299296, 10 MARCH 2004, G. Otakie

Adequate storage stability data have been submitted and reviewed for
apples, pears, and olives. These data indicate that residues of
1-naphthaleneacetic acid are reasonably stable under frozen storage
conditions in/on the above commodities for up to 12 months.

The current submission included storage stability data which showed NAA
and NAA ethyl ester stored in frozen avocado were stable for up to 27
months and stored in frozen Rambuttan stable up to 25 months.  The
storage stabilty data adequately support the storage conditions and
samples collected from the avocado and Rambuttan field trials.

860.1400 Water, Fish, and Irrigated Crops

There are no proposed uses that are relevant to this guideline topic.

860.1460 Food Handling

There are no proposed uses that are relevant to this guideline topic.

860.1480 Meat, Milk, Poultry, and Eggs

RED Residue Chemistry Chapter D299296, 10 MARCH 2004, G. Otakie

Livestock

There are no livestock feedstuffs associated with the current new
proposed uses.  At this time, the Agency has determined that NAA is in
Category 6(a)(3) (i.e., no reasonable expectations of finite residues of
concern in meat and milk).

Poultry

There are no poultry feed items associated with the currently registered
or proposed food/feed uses of naphthalene acetates; thus, a poultry
feeding study is not required. Tolerances for the eggs and edible
tissues of poultry need not be established.

860.1500 Crop Field Trials

48749901.der

Avocado

Residue data from the avocado crop field trials are reported in Table 1.
 A summary of the residue data is presented in Table 2.  Residues of NAA
were below the LOQ (<0.05 ppm) in/on avocado harvested 9-11 days
following either one or two paintbrush or sponge applications of a
1.27-1.30% ai solution of the 15.1% EC formulation of NAA ethyl ester.
Applications made to cut surface and surrounding branches. Samples were
harvested from each plot at a 2-day PHI.

In the residue decline trial, residues of NAA in/on avocado were below
the LOQ at all PHIs; therefore, residue decline could not be assessed.

TABLE  6	Residue Data from Avocado Field Trials with NAA ethyl ester.

Trial ID (City, State; Year)1	Zone	Avocado

Variety	Commodity	Total Rate

(% solution)	PHI

(days)	NAA Residues2 [Average]

Homestead, FL; 2006 (-FL41)	3	Lula	Fruit	1 x 1.27%	10	<0.050, <0.050
[<0.050]

2 x 1.27%	11	<0.050, <0.050 [<0.050]

Exeter, CA; 2006 (-CA95)	10	Zutano	Fruit	1 x 1.27%	10 	<0.050, <0.050
[<0.050]

2 x 1.27%	9	<0.050, <0.050 [<0.050]

Irvine, CA; 2006 (-CA96, -CA97, and -CA98) [Target PHI]	10	Hass	Fruit	1
x 1.28-1.30%	10-11	<0.050, <0.050, <0.050, <0.050, <0.050,

<0.050 [<0.050]

2 x 1.28-1.30%	10	<0.050, <0.050, <0.050, <0.050, <0.050,

<0.050 [<0.050]

Irvine, CA; 2006 (-CA96) [Additional Decline PHIs]	10	Hass	Fruit	1 x
1.30%	1	<0.050, <0.050 [<0.050]

	7 	<0.050, <0.050 [<0.050]

	15	<0.050, <0.050 [<0.050]

	21	<0.050, <0.050 [<0.050]

2 x 1.30%	1	<0.050, <0.050 [<0.050]

	6 	<0.050, <0.050 [<0.050]

	14 	<0.050, <0.050 [<0.050]

	21	<0.050, <0.050 [<0.050]

1  HED has concluded that trials -CA96/-CA97/-CA98 constitute a single
trial with replicate samples for purposes of 860.1500 data requirements.

2  A total of two applications of solution were made at each trial site,
with samples collected after each application.

3  Residues of NAA ethyl ester were determined by a common moiety method
that converts residues of NAA acetamide and NAA ethyl ester to NAA.  The
LOQ was 0.05 ppm.

TABLE  7  Summary of Residue Data from Avocado Field Trials with NAA
ethyl ester.

Commodity	Analyte	Total

Rate

(% solution)	PHI (days)	Residue Levels (ppm)1

n	Sample Min.	Sample Max.	LAFT2	HAFT2	Median	Mean	Std.  Dev.

Avocado, Fruit	NAA3	2 x 1.28-1.30%	10-11	3	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	0.05
0.05	N/A

2 x 1.28-1.30%	9-11	3	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	0.05	0.05	N/A

1  Except for sample min/max, values reflect per trial averages; n = no.
 of field trials.  N/A = not applicable.

2  LAFT = lowest average field trial; HAFT = highest average field
trial.

3  Residues of NAA ethyl ester were determined by a common moiety method
that converts residues of NAA acetamide and NAA ethyl ester to NAA.

An issue was raised about the separation distance for the avocado field
trials.  The petitioner indicated that since the study was conducted in
2006, the trial separation guidance developed for 2012 studies was not
achievable because of the unique application method used in the study.

Conclusions

The submitted avocado field trial data are adequate.  Residues of NAA
were  below the LOQ (<0.05 ppm) in/on avocado harvested 9-11 days
following either one or two paintbrush or sponge applications of a
1.27-1.30% ai solution of the 15.1% EC formulation of NAA ethyl ester.
In the residue decline trial, residues of NAA in/on avocado were below
the LOQ at all PHIs; therefore, residue decline could not be assessed.

An acceptable method was used for residue quantitation, and adequate
data were submitted to support sample storage intervals and conditions.

48749902.der

Rambuttan

Residue data from the rambutan field trials are reported in Table 3.  A
summary of the residue data are presented in Table 4.  Following one
foliar directed application of the 3.5% SC formulation of NAA sodium
salt at 90 and 900 ppm, (i.e. 1X and 10X) sprayed to runoff
respectively, residues (and per trial averages) of NAA in/on rambutan
fruit harvested at a 2-day PHI were 0.0786-0.636 (0.108-0.621) and
1.25-5.06 (1.35-4.95) ppm.

Residue decline data were not submitted and are not needed for crops
requiring three or fewer trials.

TABLE  8	Residue Data from Rambutan Field Trials with NAA sodium salt.

Trial ID (City, State; Year)	Zone	Rambutan

Variety	Commodity	Total Rate

(ppm)	PHI

(days)	NAA Residues1 [Average]

Kurtistown, HI; 2007 (-HI08)	13	Jit Lee	Fruit	90	2	0.0786, 0.137 [0.108]

900	2	1.25, 1.44 [1.35]

Pepeekeo, HI; 2007 (-HI09)	13	Jit Lee	Fruit	90	2	0.605, 0.636 [0.621]

900	2	4.83, 5.06 [4.95]

1  Residues were determined by a common moiety method that converts
residues of NAA acetamide and NAA ethyl ester to NAA.   Per trial
averages were calculated by the study reviewer.

TABLE  9  Summary of Residue Data from Rambutan Field Trials with NAA
sodium salt.

Commodity	Analyte	Total Rate

(ppm)	PHI (days)	Residue Levels (ppm)1

n	Sample Min.	Sample Max.	LAFT2	HAFT2	Median	Mean	Std.  Dev.

Rambutan, Fruit	NAA3	90	2	2	0.0786	0.636	0.108	0.621	0.365	0.365	0.363

900	2	2	1.25	5.06	1.35	4.95	3.15	3.15	2.55

1  Except for sample min/max, values reflect per trial averages; n = no.
of field trials.

2  LAFT = lowest average field trial; HAFT = highest average field
trial.

3  Residues were determined by a common moiety method that converts
residues of NAA acetamide and NAA ethyl ester to NAA.   Per trial
averages were calculated by the study reviewer.

Conclusions

The submitted rambutan field trial data are adequate.  Following one
foliar directed application of the 3.5% SC formulation of NAA sodium
salt at 90 and 900 ppm, respectively, residues (and per trial averages)
of NAA in/on rambutan fruit harvested at a 2-day PHI were 0.0786-0.636
(0.108-0.621) and 1.25-5.06 (1.35-4.95) ppm.  Residue decline data were
not submitted.

An acceptable method was used for residue quantitation, and adequate
data were submitted to support sample storage intervals and conditions.

Summary - Pome Fruit Group (Crop Group 11-10)

Representative crops for the pome fruit crop group are apples and pears.

D306440, 04/30/2009, G. Otakie

Per the referenced review this tolerance was revised to 0.15 ppm in
2009:

“New HED tolerance assessment procedures incorporating statistical
procedures (i.e. NAFTA MRL Calculator) subsequent to the NAA
Registration Standard indicate the 0.1 ppm tolerance for NAA in/on Pome
Fruits should be raised to 0.15 ppm.”

860.1520 Processed Food and Feed

There are no processed commodities associated with the proposed uses in
the current petition

860.1650 Submittal of Analytical Reference Standards

Analytical reference standards for NAA are available at the EPA National
Pesticide Standards Repository.  The tolerance expression includes only
NAA, so this is sufficient.

860.1850/ 860.1900 Confined/Field Accumulation in Rotational Crops

There are no rotational crop data requirements associated with the
proposed uses in the current petition.

860.1550 Proposed Tolerances

Tolerances are established under 40CFR§180.155(a) for the combined
residues of 1-naphthaleneacetic acid and its conjugates calculated as
1-naphthaleneacetic acid from the application of 1-naphthaleneacetic
acid, its ammonium, sodium, or potassium salts, ethyl ester, and
acetamide in/on sweet cherry, fruit pome group 11, olive, orange,
pineapple, and tangerine.  A time-limited Section 18 emergency exception
tolerance under 40CFR§180.155(b) is also established for avocado
(expires 12/31/12).  The established tolerances range from 0.05 ppm to
0.15 ppm.

No Codex, Canadian, or Mexican maximum residue limits (MRLs) have been
established for residues of (NAA), its salts, ester, and acetamide for
the use in this petition..

Table  10	Tolerance Summary for NAA

Commodity	Established/Proposed Tolerance (ppm)	Recommended Tolerance
(ppm)	Comments; Correct Commodity Definition

Tolerances Proposed Under PP#2E7991

Avocado	0.05

Mango	0.05

Mamey Sapote	0.05

Rambuttan	3.0	2.0

	Fruit, pome, group 11-10	0.15

	Tolerances That Need Amended Under PP#2E7991

Rambuttan	Proposed  3.0  ppm (Section F)

	2.0	---

Attachments:

Appendix I – Tolerance Assessment Calculations

F.	DOCUMENT TRACKING

RDI:  G. Otakie  10/03/12;  S. Hummel  10/03/12

Petition Number: 2E7991

DP#: 399621

PC Code: 129032

Template Version September 2005

Appendix I – Tolerance Assessment Calculations

NAA

Rambutan

US

90 ppm 2-day PHI

Total number of data (n)	4

Percentage of censored data	0%

Number of non-censored data	4

Lowest residue	0.079

Highest residue	0.636

Median residue	0.371

Mean	0.364

Standard deviation (SD)	0.297

Correction factor for censoring (CF)	1.000

Proposed MRL estimate

- Highest residue	0.636

- Mean + 4 SD	1.553

- CF x 3 Mean	1.092

Unrounded MRL	1.553

Rounded MRL	2

 High uncertainty of MRL estimate.

[Small dataset]

Residues (mg/kg)	n

0.0786	1

0.137	1

0.605	1

0.636	1

NAA	Summary of Analytical Chemistry and Residue Data	DP#:   D399621

Page   PAGE  8  of   NUMPAGES \*Arabic  16


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 33 (Wednesday, February 19, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9395-9397]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02972]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0737; Directorate Identifier 2012-SW-111-AD;
Amendment 39-17739; AD 2014-03-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters (Type Certificate
Previously Held by Eurocopter France)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Airbus Model AS332C, AS332L, AS332L1, AS332L2, and SA330J helicopters.
This AD requires inspecting the crimping of the ball joint of the
upper- and lower- end-fittings of the main servo-control and, depending
on findings, replacing the main servo-control or repairing the ball
joint. This AD was prompted by incidents of missing crimping on the
ball joints of servo-control end-fittings. The actions of this AD are
intended to prevent failure of a main servo-control upper end fitting,
and subsequent failure of the flight controls and loss of control of
the helicopter.

DATES: This AD is effective March 26, 2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain documents listed in this AD as of March 26, 2014.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus Helicopters, Inc., 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at
http://www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub. You may review the referenced
service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas
76137.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) AD, any incorporated-by-reference service information,
the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The street address for the

Docket Operations Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations Office, M-30, West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Wilbanks, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA,
2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On August 20, 2013, at 78 FR 51115, the Federal Register published
our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Eurocopter
France (Eurocopter) Model AS332C, AS332L, AS332L1, AS332L2, and SA330J
helicopters. The NPRM proposed visually inspecting the applicable ball
joint of the upper and lower end-fittings of the main servo control for
crimping. If the ball joint of the upper end-fitting was not crimped
and the slipping of the ball joint was one millimeter (mm) or greater,
the NPRM proposed replacing the servo-control. If the ball joint of the
upper end-fitting was not crimped and the slipping of the ball joint
was less than one mm, the NPRM proposed replacing the servo-control or
crimping the ball joint. If the ball joint of the lower end-fitting was
not crimped, the NPRM proposed crimping the ball joint. The proposed
requirements were intended to prevent failure of a main servo-control
upper end fitting, and subsequent failure of the flight controls and
loss of control of the helicopter.
    The NPRM was prompted by AD No. 2012-0248, dated November 20, 2012,
issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of
the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for Eurocopter Model
AS 332 C, AS 332 C1, AS 332 L, AS 332 L1, AS 332 L2, and SA 330 J
helicopters with certain part-numbered main servo-controls installed.
EASA advises that several occurrences were reported to Eurocopter of
missing crimping on ball joints of servo-control end-fittings. EASA
states that while slipping of the ball joint of the lower end-fitting
does not affect its service life, slipping of the ball joint of the
upper end-fitting can lead to a significant reduction of the service
life of this end-fitting. As a result, the EASA AD requires inspecting
each ball joint for crimping and, depending on the findings, replacing
the main servo-control.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM (78 FR 51115,
August 20, 2013).

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
our bilateral agreement with France, EASA, its technical
representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in
the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all
information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same
type designs and that air safety and the public interest require
adopting the AD requirements as proposed except for a minor editorial
change. The type certificate holder's name for the affected models in
this AD changed from Eurocopter France to Airbus Helicopters on January
10, 2014. This editorial change is consistent with the intent of the
proposals in the NPRM (78 FR 51115, August 20, 2013) and will not
increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of
this AD.

Related Service Information

    Eurocopter issued one Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB) with
three different numbers, all Revision 1, and all dated December 5,
2012. EASB No. 67.00.45 applies to civilian Model AS332C, AS332C1,
AS332L, AS332L1, AS332L2, and military Model AS332B, AS332B1, AS332M,
AS332M1, and AS332F1 helicopters. EASB No. 67.00.31 applies to military
Model AS532AC, AS532AL, AS532SC, AS532UC, AS532UE, AS532UL, AS532A2,
and AS532U2 helicopters. EASB No. 67.19 applies to civilian Model
SA330J and military Model SA330Ba, SA330Ca, SA330Ea, SA330L, SA330Jm,
SA330S1, and SA330Sm helicopters. The EASB specifies visually checking
for crimping of the ball joints of the upper- and lower- servo control
end-fittings and informing the Eurocopter Technical Support Department
of any ball joint that is not crimped. For an upper end-fitting ball
joint that is not crimped and slips one mm or greater, the EASB
specifies returning the servo-control for replacement of the ball joint
and the end-fitting. For an upper end-fitting ball joint that is not
crimped and slips less than one mm, the EASB specifies either crimping
the ball joint or returning the servo-control for ball joint crimping.
For a lower end-fitting ball joint that is not crimped, the EASB states
to crimp the ball joint. The EASB also states that if a ball joint is
crimped, no action on that ball joint is required in regard to this
unsafe condition.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 18 helicopters of U.S. Registry.
We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to
comply with this AD. We estimate it will take 1 work-hour to inspect
the ball joint for crimping at an average labor cost of $85 per work-
hour. Based on these figures, it will cost about $85 per helicopter for
the inspection, or $1,530 for U.S. operators. We estimate it will take
4 work-hours to replace a servo-control and parts will cost
approximately $60,358 for a total estimated cost of $60,698 for
replacement.
    According to the Eurocopter service information some of the costs
of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost
impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage by
Airbus Helicopters, Eurocopter, or UTC Actuation Systems/Goodrich
Actuation Systems. Accordingly, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on helicopters identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866;
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent
that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2014-03-02 Airbus Helicopters (Type Certificate previously held by
Eurocopter France): Amendment 39-17739; Docket No. FAA-2013-0737;
Directorate Identifier 2012-SW-111-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to the following model helicopters, certificated
in any category, with a part-numbered main servo-control listed
below: overhauled or repaired by UTC Actuation Systems/Goodrich
Actuation Systems between June 1, 2008, and September 15, 2012,
inclusive; or with a serial number listed in Appendix 1 of
Eurocopter Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 67.00.45 (EASB
67.00.45) or 67.19 (EASB 67.19), both Revision 1, and both dated
December 5, 2012, as applicable to your model helicopter:
    (1) Model AS332C, AS332L, AS332L1, and AS332L2 helicopters with
main servo-control, part number (P/N) SC7202, SC7202- (all dash
numbers), SC7203, SC7203- (all dash numbers), SC7221, or SC7221-
(all dash numbers), installed; and
    (2) Model SA330J helicopters with main servo-control P/N SC7111,
SC7111- (all dash numbers) SC7112, or SC7112- (all dash numbers),
installed.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as missing crimping on a
ball joint of a main servo-control end-fitting. This condition could
result in failure of a main servo-control upper end fitting, failure
of the flight controls, and loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective March 26, 2014.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    (1) Within 85 hours time-in-service (TIS):
    (i) Using a light source, inspect the ball joint of the upper
end-fitting of the main servo control for crimping in accordance
with Detail A and Detail B, Figure 1, of Eurocopter EASB 67.00.45 or
EASB 67.19, as applicable to your model helicopter.
    (A) If the upper ball joint is not crimped and the ball joint
slips a distance of 1 millimeter (mm) or greater, replace the servo-
control with an airworthy servo-control.
    (B) If the upper ball joint is not crimped and the ball joint
slips a distance of less than 1mm, either crimp the ball joint or
replace the servo-control with an airworthy servo-control.
    (ii) Using a light source, inspect the ball joint of the lower
end-fitting of the main servo-control for crimping in accordance
with Detail A and Detail B, Figure 1, of Eurocopter EASB 67.00.45 or
EASB 67.19, as applicable to your model helicopter. If the lower
ball joint is not crimped, crimp the ball joint.
    (2) Prior to installing any servo-control that is affected by
this AD, perform the required actions in accordance with paragraphs
(e)(1) of this AD.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: Matt Wilbanks, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA,
2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222-
5110; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Additional Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) AD No. 2012-0248, dated November 20, 2012. You may
view the EASA AD on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov in
Docket No. FAA-2013-0737.

(h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6730, Rotor Flight
Control--Rotorcraft Servo System.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Eurocopter Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 67.00.45,
Revision 1, dated December 5, 2012.
    (ii) Eurocopter Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 67.19,
Revision 1, dated December 5, 2012.

    Note 1 to paragraph (i)(2):  Eurocopter Emergency Alert Service
Bulletin (EASB) Nos. 67.00.45 and 67.19, both Revision 1, and both
dated December 5, 2012, are co-published as one document along with
Eurocopter EASB No. 67.00.31, Revision 1, dated December 5, 2012,
which is not incorporated by reference.

    (3) For Eurocopter service information identified in this AD,
contact Airbus Helicopters, Inc., 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand
Prairie, TX 75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
(972) 641-3775; or at http://www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663,
Fort Worth, Texas 76137. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on January 24, 2014.
Kim Smith,
Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-02972 Filed 2-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY                 NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY                              2000 TRAVERWOOD ROAD                            ANN ARBOR, MI  48105-2498

									          	OFFICE OF 										AIR AND RADIATION

July 18, 2011

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Meeting with GM on April 13, 2011

FROM:	Don Kopinski

TO:		Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162

This memorandum documents a meeting held on April 13, 2011 between GM, NHTSA, and EPA staff.  The following people attended:

      GM:  Barbara Kiss, Steve Fornetti              EPA: Byron Bunker, Angela Cullen, Tony Fernandez, Houshun Zhang, Bob Peavyhouse, and Don Kopinski              NHTSA: Coralie Cooper (phone)

The discussion focused on HD GHG and fuel consumption provisions concerning incomplete vehicles, loose engines, and ADFEs.


Water Regulations for Acrylamide and Epichlorohydrin. EPA 810-R-16-
019.
USEPA and Water Research Foundation. 2016. Summary Document: State
of Research on High-Priority Distribution System Issues.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 2015. Letter to
Manufacturers, Distributors, or Importers of Bottled Water with an
Update on Fluoride Added to Bottled Water. Available online at:
http://www.fda.gov/food/guidanceregulation/guidancedocumentsregulatoryinformation/bottledwatercarbonatedsoftdrinks/ucm444373.htm
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2004. Digital Engineering Aspects of
Karst Map: A GIS Version of Davies, W.E., Simpson, J.H., Ohlmacher,
G.C., Kirk, W.S., and Newton, E.G., 1984, Engineering Aspects of
Karst: U.S. Geological Survey, National Atlas of the United States
of America, Scale 1:7,500,000. Open-File Report 2004-1352, version
1. Available online only at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2004/1352/.
Villanueva, C.M., F. Fernandez, N. Malats, J.O. Grimalt, and M.
Kogenvinas. 2003. Meta-analysis of studies on individual consumption
of chlorinated drinking water and bladder cancer. Journal of
Epidemiology Community Health. 57: 166-173.
Villanueva, C.M., K.P. Cantor, S. Cordier, J.J.K. Jaakkola, W.D.
King, C.F. Lynch, S. Porru, and M. Kogevinas. 2004. Disinfection
byproducts and bladder cancer a pooled analysis. Epidemiology.
15(3): 357-367.
Villanueva, C.M., K.P. Cantor, J.O. Grimalt, N. Malats, D.
Silverman, A. Tardon, R. Garcia-Closas, C. Serra, A. Carrato, G.
Castano-Vinyals, R. Marcos, N. Rothman, F.X. Real, M. Dosemeci, and
M. Kogevinas. 2007. Bladder cancer and exposure to water
disinfection by-products through ingestion, bathing, showering, and
swimming in pools. American Journal of Epidemiology. 165(2): 148-
156.
Wahman, D.G. and J.G. Pressman. 2015. Distribution system
residuals--is ``detectable'' still acceptable for chloramines.
Journal of the American Water Works Association. 107(8): 53-63.
Walfoort, C., M.J. Messina, and D. Miner. 2008. Storage tank
aeration eliminates trihalomethanes. Opflow. 34(5): 28-29.
Walker, J.T. and M. Morales. 1997. Evaluation of chlorine dioxide
(ClO2) for the control of biofilms. Water Science and Technology.
35(11-12): 319-323.
Wallender, E.K., E.C. Ailes, J.S. Yoder, V.A. Roberts, and J.M.
Brunkard. 2014. Contributing factors to disease outbreaks associated
with untreated ground water. Ground Water. 52(6): 886-897.
Wang, H., S. Masters, Y. Hong, J. Stallings, J.O. Falkinham, M.A.
Edwards, and A. Pruden. 2012. Effect of disinfectant, water age, and
pipe material on occurrence and persistence of Legionella,
mycobacteria, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and two amoebas. Environmental
Science & Technology. 46(21): 11566-11574.
Weiss, W.J., S.C. Schindler, S. Freud, J.A. Herzner, K.F. Hoek, B.A.
Wright, D.A. Reckhow, and W.C. Becker. 2013. Minimizing raw water
NOM concentration through optimized source water selection. Journal
of the American Water Works Association. 105(10): 73-74.
Westerhoff, P., H. Jang, M. Abbaszadegan, and A. Absar. 2010.
Organic chloramine formation and influence on disinfection efficacy
and nitrification. Water Research Foundation.

[National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Announcement of the
Results of EPA's Review of Existing Drinking Water Standards and
Request for Public Comment and/or Information on Related Issues; page
140 of 140.]

Westerhoff, P., S. Lee, Y. Yang, G.W. Gordon, K. Hristovski, R.U.
Halden, and P. Herckes. 2015. Characterization, recovery
opportunities, and valuation of metals in municipal sludges from US
wastewater treatment plants nationwide. Environmental Science &
Technology. 49(16): 9479-9488.
World Health Organization (WHO). 2008. ``Safety Evaluation of
Certain Food Additives and Contaminants.'' International Programme
on Chemical Safety. Prepared for the 68th meeting of the Joint FAO/
WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JEFCA).
Writer, J.H., A. Hohner, J. Oropeza, A. Schmidt, K.M. Cawley, and
F.L. Rosario-Ortiz. 2014. Water treatment implications after the
High Park Wildfire, Colorado. Journal of the American Water Works
Association. 106(4): 189-199.
Yan, M., D. Wang, J. Ni, J. Qu, C.W. Chow, and H. Liu. 2008.
Mechanism of natural organic matter removal by polyaluminum
chloride: effect of coagulant particle size and hydrolysis kinetics.
Water Research. 42(13): 3361-3370.
Yang, Y., Y. Komaki, S. Kimura, H. Hu, E. Wagner, B. Marinas, and M.
Plewa. 2014. Toxic impact of bromide and iodide on drinking water
disinfected with chlorine or chloramines. Environmental Science &
Technology. 48(20): 12362-12369.
Zhang, K-J., N-Y. Gao, Y. Deng, T. Zhang, and C. Li. 2012. Aqueous
Chlorination of Algal Odorants: Reaction Kinetics and Formation of
Disinfection By-products. Separation and Purification Technology.
92: 93-99.

    Dated: December 20, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-31262 Filed 1-10-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 93 (Tuesday, May 14, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21382-21384]
[FR Doc No: 2019-09869]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85803; File No. SR-BOX-2019-16]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt BOX Rule
7620 (Accommodation Transactions) Establishing Cabinet Trading on the
Exchange's Trading Floor

May 8, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 25, 2019, BOX Exchange LLC (``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been
prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to establish BOX Rule 7620 (Accommodation
Transactions) which provides for cabinet trading on the Exchange's
Trading Floor. The text of the proposed rule change is available from
the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public
Reference Room and also on the Exchange's internet website at http://boxoptions.com.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to establish BOX Rule 7620 (Accommodation
Transactions) which provides for cabinet trading \3\ on the Exchange's
Trading Floor. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule is
substantially similar to a rule on another exchange.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ An ``accommodation'' or ``cabinet'' trade refers to trades
in listed options on the Exchange that are worthless or not actively
traded, often times conducted to establish tax losses. Cabinet or
accommodation trading of option contracts is intended to accommodate
persons wishing to effect closing transactions in those series of
options dealt in on the Exchange for which there is no auction
market. A cabinet trade is a transaction in which the per-contract
value of the cabinet trade is less than the per-contract value of a
trade at the specified minimum increment for the option contract.
    \4\ See Nasdaq Phlx Rule 1059 (allowing for accommodation
trades).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 7620 defines the term ``cabinet order'' as a closing
limit order at a price of $1 per option contract for the account of a
customer or Floor Market Maker. Rule 7620 also states that an opening
order is not a ``cabinet order'' but may in certain cases be matched
with a cabinet order pursuant to subsection proposed Rule 7620(c) and
(d). For purposes of this rule filing, the Exchange specifies that an
``opening order'' is a contra-side opening order in response to a
Customer who submits a closing order to clear their position. The rule
further states that only Floor Brokers may represent cabinet orders.
Further, under proposed Rule 7620, cabinet trading shall be available
for each series of options open for trading on the Exchange under the
following terms and conditions (a) trading shall be conducted in
accordance with other Exchange rules except as otherwise provided
herein or unless the context otherwise requires; and (b) cabinet orders
may be submitted to Floor Brokers. Floor Brokers must use the
designated cabinet transaction forms provided by the Exchange to
document receipt of a cabinet order and the execution of a cabinet
transaction. Further, the proposed rule states that Rule 7580(e)(1)
shall not apply to orders placed in the cabinet or executed in the
cabinet.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Rule 7580(e)(1) provides for the use on the trading floor of
the Floor Broker's order entry mechanism to record all options
orders represented by such Floor Broker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to add Rule 7620(c), (d), and (e) which
specifies the procedures to be followed by the Floor Broker and other
trading crowd participants to execute cabinet orders in two different
scenarios. In each case, the Floor Broker would be required to act in
the presence of at least one Market Maker and Options Exchange
Official.
    Proposed Rule 7620(c) governs cases where a Floor Broker holds a
cabinet order but does not also hold contra-side interest. In that
case, the Floor Broker shall announce the terms of the cabinet order to
the trading crowd to solicit interest to participate on the closing
position. All matching cabinet orders shall be assigned priority based
upon the sequence in which such orders are received by the Floor
Broker. If there is no matching cabinet order, the Floor Broker may
match the cabinet order with a matching opening buy or sell limit order
priced at $1 per option contract. If there is no matching cabinet order
or opening order, the Floor Broker may seek matching bids or offers for
accounts of Floor Participants. Floor Participants can only participate
after all other orders have been matched.
    Rule 7620(d) governs cases where a Floor Broker holds a cabinet
order and also a contra-side cabinet order. In that situation, the
Floor Broker is required to announce the terms of the cabinet orders to
the trading crowd. The cabinet orders shall then be immediately crossed
by the Floor Broker.
    Finally, proposed Rule 7620(e) applies where a Floor Broker holds
both a cabinet order and a contra-side opening order. In that
situation, the Floor Broker is required to announce the terms of the
cabinet order to the trading crowd. If there is a matching cabinet
order, the Floor Broker shall match the two cabinet orders. If there is
no

matching cabinet order, the cabinet order shall then be immediately
crossed by the Floor Broker with the opening order held by the Floor
Broker.
    The proposed priority rules focus on the cabinet order at the time
it is represented by a Floor Broker in the trading crowd. Thus, as
proposed, each Floor Broker holding a cabinet order only would be
required to assign priority to cabinet orders he holds based upon the
sequence in which he receives such orders, therefore, each Floor Broker
would not be required to cede priority to a cabinet order represented
in the crowd at an earlier time by another Floor Broker.
    The Floor Broker is then to assign matching cabinet orders from the
crowd based upon the sequence in which the orders are received by that
floor broker representing such order. For example, the ``Floor Broker
A'' receives a cabinet order to buy 500 contracts and represents to the
trading crowd. At the time of representation to the crowd, ``Floor
Broker B'' has a matching cabinet order for 250 contracts and ``Floor
Broker C'' enters the trading crows after ``Floor Broker B'' with a
matching cabinet order for 500 contracts. ``Floor Broker A'' then
proceeds to match his 500 contracts to buy cabinet order with the
matching cabinet order from ``Floor Broker B'' for 250 contracts and
matching the balance of 250 contracts with ``Floor Broker C''. The
Floor Broker matched the cabinet orders based on the sequence in which
the orders were received in the crowd at the time the cabinet order was
represented. If there are no matching cabinet orders from the crowd,
the Floor Broker may match the cabinet order with a matching opening
order from the crowd. If however the Floor Broker holds both a cabinet
order and a contra side cabinet order, the Floor Broker would be
required to immediately cross those orders after announcing their terms
in the crowd, regardless of cabinet orders held by other Floor Brokers.
    In addition, the Exchange proposes Rule 7620(f) which requires
that, once the cabinet order has been either crossed or matched, the
Floor Broker must submit the designated cabinet form as soon as
possible to the Exchange's Market Operations staff for clearance and
reporting. Finally, the Exchange proposes Rule 7620(g) which states
that Floor Market Makers shall not be subject to the requirements of
Rule 8510 in respect to orders placed pursuant to this proposed rule.
Further, proposed Rule 7620(g) states that the provisions of Rule
7040(a) through (c), and Rule 7050 would not apply to orders placed in
the cabinet.\6\ The proposed rule is substantially similar to that of
another Exchange because it will give market participants the ability
to close out positions in which the value of the contract is less than
the value of the contract at the minimum increment.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Exchange Rule 8510 discusses the obligations and
restrictions applicable to floor market makers. Exchange Rule 7040
sets out the meanings for premium quotes and orders, and Exchange
Rule 7050 details minimum trading increments for options contracts
traded on BOX.
    \7\ See supra, note 4. The Exchange's proposed rule differs in
one material respect, by allowing the Market Operations Center staff
to clear and report cabinet trades immediately rather than at the
close of the business day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\8\ in general, and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in
particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the
public interest. In particular, by adopting the proposed cabinet rule
above, the Exchange will provide the ability for market participants to
close out positions in which the value of the contract is less than the
value of the contract at the minimum increment. The proposed rule
change will permit market participants to execute cabinet trades on the
Exchange, even without the participation of Floor Market Makers. The
proposed rule promotes just and equitable principles of trade by
setting forth priority rules for trade executions, and by requiring use
of Exchange designated cabinet transaction forms to record information
and the submission of the forms to Market Operations Center staff for
the clearance and reporting of the cabinet trades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule would give market participants' the ability to
execute cabinet transactions on the Exchange's Trading Floor, in an
open manner and in compliance with new procedures specified by this
rule.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule would apply
to all Floor Brokers. In this regard and as indicated above, the
Exchange notes that the proposed rule is substantially similar to Phlx
rule that was approved by the Commission.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See supra, note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \11\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder. \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BOX-2019-16 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2019-16. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2019-16 and should be submitted on
or before June 4, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-09869 Filed 5-13-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


PRODUCT CHEMISTRY SCIENCE CHAPTER ON Azadioxabicycooctane FOR REREGISTRATION ELIGIBILITY DECISION ( RED) 2 April 6, 2005 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Product Chemistry Science Chapter on Azadioxybiscyclooctane For Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( RED) Process From: A. Najm Shamim, Ph. D., Chemist Regulatory Management Branch II Antimicrobials Division ( 7510C)

To: Tim McMahon, Ph. D., Chair ADTC Senior Toxicologist Antimicrobials Division ( 7510C)

Thru: Mark Hartman, Branch Chief Regulatory Management Branch II Antimicrobials Division ( 7510C)

Enclosed please find the Product Chemistry Science Chapter on Azadioxybicycloctane submitted for consideration of RED Process. 3 PRODUCT CHEMISTRY CHAPTER A. Chemical Overview The chemical hydroxypoly ( methyleneoxy) bicyclic oxazolidine is found as the active ingredient in Nuosept 95 preservative. This preservative is a 50% aqueous solution used in waterbased products. It effectively prevents deterioration and spoilage during the manufacture, storage and service of products such as latex paints, latex emulsions, pigment dispersions and slurries, inks, adhesives, caulks, sealants, metalworking fluids, textile fiber finish solutions, paper coatings, drilling muds and flooding fluids.

B. Chemical Identification ° Name: Hydroxypoly ( methyleneoxy) bicyclic oxazolidine ° Common/ Trade Names: Nuosept 95, Azadioxabicycooctane ° CAS Number: 56709 13 8 ° Active ingredients: 5 Hydroxymethyl 1 aza 3,7 dioxabicyclo( 3.3.0) octane ( 28.80%) 5 Hydroxymethoxymethyl 1 aza 3,7 dioxabicyclo( 3.3.0) octane ( 16.00%) 5 Hydroxypoly[ mrthyleneoxy( 74% C2, 21% C3, 4% C4, 1% C5)] methyl 1 aza 3,7 dioxabicyclo( 3.3.0) octane ( 5.20%)

C. Physical/ Chemical Properties As a TGAI, the following characteristics have been reported for hydroxypoly ( methyleneoxy) bicyclic oxazolidine:

° Color: Pale yellow ° Physical State: Clear liquid ° Odor: Mild, characteristic ° Specific gravity: 1.144 at 25oC ° Dissociation Constant: 4.5 ± 0.5 ° pH: 6.33 at 25oC ° Stability: Stable ° Melting point: NA ° Boiling point: 104.7oC at 760 mmHg ° Water Solubility: 11.1 ± 0.1 g/ 100ml at 20oC ° Solubility in organic solvents: Hexane 0.2 g/ 100 g at 25oC Petroleum ether 0.2 g/ 100 g at 25oC Xylene 1.5 g/ 100 g at 25oC Benzene 2.8 g/ 100 g at 25oC Ethyl ether 28.0 g/ 100 g at 25oC 4 ° Octanol water Partition Coefficient: < 10 ° Vapor Pressure: < 2.1 x 10 5 mm Hg at 20oC ° Viscosity: 3.5 to 4 Centistokes at 25oC ° Flash Point ( SCC): 140oF ° Flash Point ( TCC): > 200oF D. Use Profile The following information was obtained for Nuosept 95 from the web page of the manufacturing company, ISP ( http:// www. ispcorp. com/ products/ biocides/ index. html).

Recommended Use by Industry End Use Reason for Treatment Recommended Use Level of Nuosept 95 Preservative ( percent by weight of formulation) Point of Addition Adhesives ( Natural based) To prevent spoilage during manufacture and storage 0.2 0.5 Add to water phase or post add Adhesives ( Synthetics) To prevent spoilage during manufacture and storage 0.1 0.5 Add to water phase or post add Caulks To increase shelf life 0.1 0.5 Add to water phase during manufacture Drilling Muds To prevent spoilage during manufacture, storage and service 0.05 0.2 Add to water phase or post add Flooding Fluids To prevent spoilage during storage and service 0.01 0.1 Post addition Latex Emulsion To prevent spoilage during transit and storage 0.05 0.3 Post addition Latex Paint To prevent spoilage during manufacture and to increase shelf life 0.1 0.5 Add at any point during manufacture Inks To prevent spoilage during storage and service 0.1 0.5 Post addition Paper Coatings To prevent spoilage during manufacture and storage 0.1 0.5 Add to water phase or post add Pigment Dispersion To increase shelf life 0.1 0.3 Add at any point during manufacture Pigment Slurry To prevent spoilage during transit and storage 0.05 0.1 Add to water phase or post add Sealants To increase shelf life 0.1 0.5 Add to water phase during manufacture Metalworking fluids To protect during manufacture and service 0.1 0.3 Add to water phase Textile Fiber finish To prevent spoilage during manufacture and service 0.05 0.1 Add at any point during manufacture 5 BIBLIOGRAPHY 1) MRID No.: 42734301 2) and MRID No: 42740801