(3) For a municipality, State, Federal, or other public agency: Either a principal executive officer or ranking elected official. For the purposes of this part, a principal executive officer of a Federal agency includes the chief executive officer having responsibility for the overall operations of a principal geographic unit of the agency (e.g., a Regional Administrator of EPA); or
(4) For affected facilities:
(i) The designated representative in so far as actions, standards, requirements, or prohibitions under title IV of the Clean Air Act or the regulations promulgated thereunder are concerned; or
(ii) The designated representative for any other purposes under part 60.
Collection system means any infrastructure that conveys gas or liquids from the well site to another location for treatment, storage, processing, recycling, disposal or other handling.
Completion combustion device means any ignition device, installed horizontally or vertically, used in exploration and production operations to combust otherwise vented emissions from completions. Completion combustion devices include pit flares.
Compressor station means any permanent combination of one or more compressors that move natural gas at increased pressure through gathering or transmission pipelines, or into or out of storage. This includes, but is not limited to, gathering and boosting stations and transmission compressor stations. The combination of one or more compressors located at a well site, or located at an onshore natural gas processing plant, is not a compressor station for purposes of §60.5397a.
Condensate means hydrocarbon liquid separated from natural gas that condenses due to changes in the temperature, pressure, or both, and remains liquid at standard conditions.
Continuous bleed means a continuous flow of pneumatic supply natural gas to a pneumatic controller.
Crude oil and natural gas source category means:
(1) Crude oil production, which includes the well and extends to the point of custody transfer to the crude oil transmission pipeline or any other forms of transportation; and
(2) Natural gas production, processing, transmission, and storage, which include the well and extend to, but do not include, the local distribution company custody transfer station.
Custody transfer means the transfer of crude oil or natural gas after processing and/or treatment in the producing operations, or from storage vessels or automatic transfer facilities or other such equipment, including product loading racks, to pipelines or any other forms of transportation.
Dehydrator means a device in which an absorbent directly contacts a natural gas stream and absorbs water in a contact tower or absorption column (absorber).
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this subpart including, but not limited to, any emission limit, operating limit, or work practice standard;
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is included in the operating permit for any affected source required to obtain such a permit; or
(3) Fails to meet any emission limit, operating limit, or work practice standard in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by this subpart.
Delineation well means a well drilled in order to determine the boundary of a field or producing reservoir.
Equipment, as used in the standards and requirements in this subpart relative to the equipment leaks of GHG (in the form of methane) and VOC from onshore natural gas processing plants, means each pump, pressure relief device, open-ended valve or line, valve, and flange or other connector that is in VOC service or in wet gas service, and any device or system required by those same standards and requirements in this subpart.
Field gas means feedstock gas entering the natural gas processing plant.
Field gas gathering means the system used transport field gas from a field to the main pipeline in the area.
Flare means a thermal oxidation system using an open (without enclosure) flame. Completion combustion devices as defined in this section are not considered flares.
Flow line means a pipeline used to transport oil and/or gas to a processing facility or a mainline pipeline.
Flowback means the process of allowing fluids and entrained solids to flow from a well following a treatment, either in preparation for a subsequent phase of treatment or in preparation for cleanup and returning the well to production. The term flowback also means the fluids and entrained solids that emerge from a well during the flowback process. The flowback period begins when material introduced into the well during the treatment returns to the surface following hydraulic fracturing or refracturing. The flowback period ends when either the well is shut in and permanently disconnected from the flowback equipment or at the startup of production. The flowback period includes the initial flowback stage and the separation flowback stage.
Fugitive emissions component means any component that has the potential to emit fugitive emissions of methane or VOC at a well site or compressor station, including but not limited to valves, connectors, pressure relief devices, open-ended lines, flanges, covers and closed vent systems not subject to §60.5411a, thief hatches or other openings on a controlled storage vessel not subject to §60.5395a, compressors, instruments, and meters. Devices that vent as part of normal operations, such as natural gas-driven pneumatic controllers or natural gas-driven pumps, are not fugitive emissions components, insofar as the natural gas discharged from the device's vent is not considered a fugitive emission. Emissions originating from other than the vent, such as the thief hatch on a controlled storage vessel, would be considered fugitive emissions.
Gas processing plant process unit means equipment assembled for the extraction of natural gas liquids from field gas, the fractionation of the liquids into natural gas products, or other operations associated with the processing of natural gas products. A process unit can operate independently if supplied with sufficient feed or raw materials and sufficient storage facilities for the products.
Gas to oil ratio (GOR) means the ratio of the volume of gas at standard temperature and pressure that is produced from a volume of oil when depressurized to standard temperature and pressure.
Greenfield site means a site, other than a natural gas processing plant, which is entirely new construction. Natural gas processing plants are not considered to be greenfield sites, even if they are entirely new construction.
Hydraulic fracturing means the process of directing pressurized fluids containing any combination of water, proppant, and any added chemicals to penetrate tight formations, such as shale or coal formations, that subsequently require high rate, extended flowback to expel fracture fluids and solids during completions.
Hydraulic refracturing means conducting a subsequent hydraulic fracturing operation at a well that has previously undergone a hydraulic fracturing operation.
In light liquid service means that the piece of equipment contains a liquid that meets the conditions specified in §60.485a(e) or §60.5401a(f)(2) of this part.
In wet gas service means that a compressor or piece of equipment contains or contacts the field gas before the extraction step at a gas processing plant process unit.
Initial flowback stage means the period during a well completion operation which begins at the onset of flowback and ends at the separation flowback stage.
Intermediate hydrocarbon liquid means any naturally occurring, unrefined petroleum liquid.
Intermittent/snap-action pneumatic controller means a pneumatic controller that is designed to vent non-continuously.
Liquefied natural gas unit means a unit used to cool natural gas to the point at which it is condensed into a liquid which is colorless, odorless, non-corrosive and non-toxic.
Liquid collection system means tankage and/or lines at a well site to contain liquids from one or more wells or to convey liquids to another site.
Local distribution company (LDC) custody transfer station means a metering station where the LDC receives a natural gas supply from an upstream supplier, which may be an interstate transmission pipeline or a local natural gas producer, for delivery to customers through the LDC's intrastate transmission or distribution lines.
Low pressure well means a well that satisfies at least one of the following conditions:
(1) The static pressure at the wellhead following fracturing but prior to the onset of flowback is less than the flow line pressure at the sales meter;
(2) The pressure of flowback fluid immediately before it enters the flow line, as determined under §60.5432a, is less than the flow line pressure at the sales meter; or
(3) Flowback of the fracture fluids will not occur without the use of artificial lift equipment.
Maximum average daily throughput means the earliest calculation of daily average throughput during the 30-day PTE evaluation period employing generally accepted methods.
Natural gas-driven pneumatic controller means a pneumatic controller powered by pressurized natural gas.
Natural gas-driven diaphragm pump means a positive displacement pump powered by pressurized natural gas that uses the reciprocating action of flexible diaphragms in conjunction with check valves to pump a fluid. A pump in which a fluid is displaced by a piston driven by a diaphragm is not considered a diaphragm pump for purposes of this subpart. A lean glycol circulation pump that relies on energy exchange with the rich glycol from the contactor is not considered a diaphragm pump.
Natural gas liquids means the hydrocarbons, such as ethane, propane, butane, and pentane that are extracted from field gas.
Natural gas processing plant (gas plant) means any processing site engaged in the extraction of natural gas liquids from field gas, fractionation of mixed natural gas liquids to natural gas products, or both. A Joule-Thompson valve, a dew point depression valve, or an isolated or standalone Joule-Thompson skid is not a natural gas processing plant.
Natural gas transmission means the pipelines used for the long distance transport of natural gas (excluding processing). Specific equipment used in natural gas transmission includes the land, mains, valves, meters, boosters, regulators, storage vessels, dehydrators, compressors, and their driving units and appurtenances, and equipment used for transporting gas from a production plant, delivery point of purchased gas, gathering system, storage area, or other wholesale source of gas to one or more distribution area(s).
Nonfractionating plant means any gas plant that does not fractionate mixed natural gas liquids into natural gas products.
Non-natural gas-driven pneumatic controller means an instrument that is actuated using other sources of power than pressurized natural gas; examples include solar, electric, and instrument air.
Onshore means all facilities except those that are located in the territorial seas or on the outer continental shelf.
Pneumatic controller means an automated instrument used for maintaining a process condition such as liquid level, pressure, delta-pressure and temperature.
Pressure vessel means a storage vessel that is used to store liquids or gases and is designed not to vent to the atmosphere as a result of compression of the vapor headspace in the pressure vessel during filling of the pressure vessel to its design capacity.
Process unit means components assembled for the extraction of natural gas liquids from field gas, the fractionation of the liquids into natural gas products, or other operations associated with the processing of natural gas products. A process unit can operate independently if supplied with sufficient feed or raw materials and sufficient storage facilities for the products.
Produced water means water that is extracted from the earth from an oil or natural gas production well, or that is separated from crude oil, condensate, or natural gas after extraction.
Qualified Professional Engineer means an individual who is licensed by a state as a Professional Engineer to practice one or more disciplines of engineering and who is qualified by education, technical knowledge and experience to make the specific technical certifications required under this subpart. Professional engineers making these certifications must be currently licensed in at least one state in which the certifying official is located.
Reciprocating compressor means a piece of equipment that increases the pressure of a process gas by positive displacement, employing linear movement of the driveshaft.
Reciprocating compressor rod packing means a series of flexible rings in machined metal cups that fit around the reciprocating compressor piston rod to create a seal limiting the amount of compressed natural gas that escapes to the atmosphere, or other mechanism that provides the same function.
Recovered gas means gas recovered through the separation process during flowback.
Recovered liquids means any crude oil, condensate or produced water recovered through the separation process during flowback.
Reduced emissions completion means a well completion following fracturing or refracturing where gas flowback that is otherwise vented is captured, cleaned, and routed to the gas flow line or collection system, re-injected into the well or another well, used as an onsite fuel source, or used for other useful purpose that a purchased fuel or raw material would serve, with no direct release to the atmosphere.
Reduced sulfur compounds means H2S, carbonyl sulfide (COS), and carbon disulfide (CS2).
Removed from service means that a storage vessel affected facility has been physically isolated and disconnected from the process for a purpose other than maintenance in accordance with §60.5395a(c)(1).
Returned to service means that a storage vessel affected facility that was removed from service has been:
(1) Reconnected to the original source of liquids or has been used to replace any storage vessel affected facility; or
(2) Installed in any location covered by this subpart and introduced with crude oil, condensate, intermediate hydrocarbon liquids or produced water.
Routed to a process or route to a process means the emissions are conveyed via a closed vent system to any enclosed portion of a process that is operational where the emissions are predominantly recycled and/or consumed in the same manner as a material that fulfills the same function in the process and/or transformed by chemical reaction into materials that are not regulated materials and/or incorporated into a product; and/or recovered.
Salable quality gas means natural gas that meets the flow line or collection system operator specifications, regardless of whether such gas is sold.
Separation flowback stage means the period during a well completion operation when it is technically feasible for a separator to function. The separation flowback stage ends either at the startup of production, or when the well is shut in and permanently disconnected from the flowback equipment.
Startup of production means the beginning of initial flow following the end of flowback when there is continuous recovery of salable quality gas and separation and recovery of any crude oil, condensate or produced water.
Storage vessel means a tank or other vessel that contains an accumulation of crude oil, condensate, intermediate hydrocarbon liquids, or produced water, and that is constructed primarily of nonearthen materials (such as wood, concrete, steel, fiberglass, or plastic) which provide structural support. A well completion vessel that receives recovered liquids from a well after startup of production following flowback for a period which exceeds 60 days is considered a storage vessel under this subpart. A tank or other vessel shall not be considered a storage vessel if it has been removed from service in accordance with the requirements of §60.5395a(c)(1) until such time as such tank or other vessel has been returned to service. For the purposes of this subpart, the following are not considered storage vessels:
(1) Vessels that are skid-mounted or permanently attached to something that is mobile (such as trucks, railcars, barges or ships), and are intended to be located at a site for less than 180 consecutive days. If you do not keep or are not able to produce records, as required by §60.5420a(c)(5)(iv), showing that the vessel has been located at a site for less than 180 consecutive days, the vessel described herein is considered to be a storage vessel from the date the original vessel was first located at the site. This exclusion does not apply to a well completion vessel as described above.
(2) Process vessels such as surge control vessels, bottoms receivers or knockout vessels.
(3) Pressure vessels designed to operate in excess of 204.9 kilopascals and without emissions to the atmosphere.
Sulfur production rate means the rate of liquid sulfur accumulation from the sulfur recovery unit.
Sulfur recovery unit means a process device that recovers element sulfur from acid gas.
Surface site means any combination of one or more graded pad sites, gravel pad sites, foundations, platforms, or the immediate physical location upon which equipment is physically affixed.
Sweetening unit means a process device that removes hydrogen sulfide and/or carbon dioxide from the sour natural gas stream.
Total Reduced Sulfur (TRS) means the sum of the sulfur compounds hydrogen sulfide, methyl mercaptan, dimethyl sulfide, and dimethyl disulfide as measured by Method 16 of appendix A-6 of this part.
Total SO2 equivalents means the sum of volumetric or mass concentrations of the sulfur compounds obtained by adding the quantity existing as SO2 to the quantity of SO2 that would be obtained if all reduced sulfur compounds were converted to SO2 (ppmv or kg/dscm (lb/dscf)).
Underground storage vessel means a storage vessel stored below ground.
Well means a hole drilled for the purpose of producing oil or natural gas, or a well into which fluids are injected.
Well completion means the process that allows for the flowback of petroleum or natural gas from newly drilled wells to expel drilling and reservoir fluids and tests the reservoir flow characteristics, which may vent produced hydrocarbons to the atmosphere via an open pit or tank.
Well completion operation means any well completion with hydraulic fracturing or refracturing occurring at a well affected facility.
Well completion vessel means a vessel that contains flowback during a well completion operation following hydraulic fracturing or refracturing. A well completion vessel may be a lined earthen pit, a tank or other vessel that is skid-mounted or portable. A well completion vessel that receives recovered liquids from a well after startup of production following flowback for a period which exceeds 60 days is considered a storage vessel under this subpart.
Well site means one or more surface sites that are constructed for the drilling and subsequent operation of any oil well, natural gas well, or injection well. For purposes of the fugitive emissions standards at §60.5397a, well site also means a separate tank battery surface site collecting crude oil, condensate, intermediate hydrocarbon liquids, or produced water from wells not located at the well site (e.g., centralized tank batteries).
Wellhead means the piping, casing, tubing and connected valves protruding above the earth's surface for an oil and/or natural gas well. The wellhead ends where the flow line connects to a wellhead valve. The wellhead does not include other equipment at the well site except for any conveyance through which gas is vented to the atmosphere.
Wildcat well means a well outside known fields or the first well drilled in an oil or gas field where no other oil and gas production exists.
§60.5432a How do I determine whether a well is a low pressure well using the low pressure well equation?
(a) To determine that your well is a low pressure well subject to §60.5375a(f), you must determine whether the characteristics of the well are such that the well meets the definition of low pressure well in §60.5430a. To determine that the well meets the definition of low pressure well in §60.5430a, you must use the low pressure well equation below:
      PL psia=0.495xPR-qgqg+qo+qw0.05xPR+0.038xL-67.578-qoqg+qo+qwxρo144+qwqg+qo+qw0.433∙L
      Where:
(1) PL  is the pressure of flowback fluid immediately before it enters the flow line, expressed in pounds force per square inch (psia), and is to be calculated using the equation above;
(2) PR is the pressure of the reservoir containing oil, gas, and water at the well site, expressed in psia;
(3) L is the true vertical depth of the well, expressed in feet (ft);
(4) qo  is the flow rate of oil in the well, expressed in cubic feet/second (cu ft/sec);
(5) qg  is the flow rate of gas in the well, expressed in cu ft/sec;
(6) qw  is the flow rate of water in the well, expressed in cu ft/sec;
(7)  ρo is the density of oil in the well, expressed in pounds mass per cubic feet (lbm/cu ft).
(b) You must determine the four values in paragraphs (a)(4) through(7) of this section, using the calculations in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(15) of this section.
(1) Determine the value of the bottom hole pressure, PBH (psia), based on available information at the well site, or by calculating it using the reservoir pressure, PR (psia), in the following equation:
   PBH psia=12PR
(2) Determine the value of the bottom hole temperature, TBH (F), based on available information at the well site, or by calculating it using the true vertical depth of the well, L(ft), in the following equation:
   TBH F=0.014xL+79.081
(3) Calculate the value of the applicable natural gas specific gravity that would result from a separator pressure of 100 psig, γgs, using the following equation with: separator at standard conditions (pressure, p=14.7 (psia), temperature, T =60 (F)); the oil API gravity at the well site, γ0; and the gas specific gravity at the separator under standard conditions, γgp=0.75:
   γgs=γgp ∙1.0+5.912 x 10-5∙γo∙T∙logp114.7
(4) Calculate the value of the applicable dissolved GOR, Rs (scf/STBO), using the following equation with: the bottom hole pressure, PBH psia, determined in (b)(1) of this section; the bottom hole temperature, TBH F, determined in (b)(2) of this section; the gas gravity at separator pressure of 100 psig, γgs, calculated in (b)(3) of this section; the oil API gravity, γo, at the well site; and the constants, C1, C2, and C3, found in Table A:
   Rs(scfSTBO)=C1∙γgs∙PBHC2∙expC3γoTBH  + 460

               Table A. Coefficients for the correlation for Rs.
                                   Constant
                                  γAPI<=30
                                  γAPI>30
                                      C1
                                    0.0362
                                    0.0178
                                      C2
                                    1.0937
                                    1.1870
                                      C3
                                    25.7240
                                    23.931

(5) Calculate the value of the oil formation volume factor, Bo (bbl/STBO), using the following equation with: the bottom hole temperature, TBH F, determined in (b)(2) of this section; the gas gravity at separator pressure of 100 psig, γgs, calculated in (b)(3) of this section; the dissolved GOR, Rs (scf/STBO), calculated in (b)(4) of this section; the oil API gravity, γo, at the well site; and the constants, C1, C2, and C3, found in Table B:
   BobblSTBO=1.0+C1∙Rs+(TBH-60)γoγgs∙C2+C3∙Rs

               Table B. Coefficients for the correlation for Bo
                                   Constant
                                  γAPI<=30
                                  γAPI>30
                                      C1
                                 4.677x10[-4]
                                 4.670x10[-4]
                                      C2
                                 1.751x10[-5]
                                 1.100x10[-5]
                                      C3
                                 -1.811x10[-8]
                                 1.337x10[-9]

(6) Calculate the density of oil at the wellhead, ρWH (lbmcu ft), using the following equation with the value of the oil API gravity, γo, at the well site:
   ρWH (lbmcu ft)= 141.5γo+131.5x62.4
(7) Calculate the density of oil at bottom hole conditions, ρBH (lbmcu ft), using the following equation with: the dissolved GOR, Rs (scf/STBO), calculated in (b)(4) of this section; the oil formation volume factor, Bo (bbl/STBO), calculated in (b)(5) of this section; the oil density at the wellhead, ρWH (lbmcu ft), calculated in (b)(6) of this section; and the dissolved gas gravity, γgd=0.77:
   ρBH (lbmcu ft)= ρWH + 0.0136xRsxγgdBo
(8) Calculate the density of oil in the well, ρo (lbmcu ft), using the following equation with the density of oil at the wellhead, ρWH (lbmcu ft), calculated in (b)(6) of this section; and the density of oil at bottom hole conditions, ρBH (lbmcu ft), calculated in (b)(7) of this section:
                           ρo lbmcu ft=0.5xρWH+ρBH
(9)Calculate the oil flow rate, qo (cu ft/sec),    using the following equation with: the oil formation volume factor, Bo (bbl/STBO), as calculated in (b)(5) of this section; and the estimated oil production rate at the well head, Qo (STBO/day):
     qocu ftsec=Qo STBOdayxBo bblSTBOx5.614(cu ftbbl)x124x60x60(daysec)
(10) Calculate the critical pressure, Pc (psia), and critical temperature, Tc (R), using the equations below with: gas gravity at standard conditions (pressure, P=14.7 (psia), temperature, T =60 (F)), γg=0.75; and where the mole fractions of nitrogen, carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide in the gas are XN2=0.168225, XCO2= 0.013163, and XH2S=0.013680, respectively:
   Pc(psia)=678-50∙γg-0.5-206.7∙XN2+440∙XCO2+606.7∙XH2S
   Tc(R)=326+315.7∙γg-0.5-240∙XN2-83.3∙XCO2+133.3∙XH2S
(11) Calculate reduced pressure, Pr, and reduced temperature, Tr, using the following equations with: the bottom hole pressure, PBH, as determined in (b)(1) of this section; the bottom hole temperature, TBH F, as determined in (b)(2) of this section in the following equations:
   Pr=PBHPc
   Tr=TBH+460Tc
(12) Calculate the gas compressibility factor, Z, using the following equation with the reduced pressure, Pr, calculated in (b)(11) of this section:
   z=A+(1-A)eB+C∙prD
            The values for A, B, C, D in the above equation, are calculated using the following equations with the reduced pressure, Pr, and reduced temperature, Tr, calculated in (b)(11) of this section:
                    A=1.39∙Tr-0.920.5-0.36*Tr-0.101
                    B=0.62-0.23∙Tr∙Pr+0.066Tr-0.86-0.037∙Pr2+0.32109∙Tr-1∙Pr6
                    C=(0.132-0.32∙logTr)
                    D=100.3106-0.49∙Tr+0.1824∙Tr2
(13) Calculate the gas formation volume factor, Bgcuftscf, using the bottom hole pressure, PBH psia, as determined in (b)(1) of this section; and the bottom hole temperature, TBH (F), as determined in (b)(2) of this section:
   Bgcuftscf=0.0283∙Z∙(TBH+460)PBH()
(14) Calculate the gas flow rate, qgcu ftsec, using the following equation with: the value of gas formation volume factor, Bgcuftscf, calculated in (b)(13) of this section; the estimated gas production rate, Qg (scf/day); the estimated oil production rate, Qo (STBO/day); and the dissolved GOR, Rs (scf/STBO), as calculated in (b)(4) of this section:
                           qgcfsec=(Qg-Rs∙Qo)∙Bg∙124x60x60
(15) Calculate the flow rate of water in the well,   qw  (cu ft/sec), using the following equation with the water production rate Qw (bbl/day) at the well site:
                   qwcfsec=Qw bbldayx5.614(cfbbl)x124x60x60(daysec)

§§60.5433a - 60.5499a [Reserved]
Table 1 to Subpart OOOOa of Part 60  -  Required Minimum Initial SO2 Emission Reduction Efficiency (Zi)

H2S content of acid gas (Y), %
Sulfur feed rate (X), LT/D

2.0<X<5.0
5.0<X<15.0
15.0<X<300.0
X>300.0
Y>50
79.0
88.51X[0.0101]Y[0.0125] or 99.9, whichever is smaller
20<Y<50
79.0
88.51X[0.0101]Y[0.0125] or 97.9, whichever is smaller
97.9
10<Y<20
79.0
88.51X[0.0101]Y[0.0125]
or 93.5, whichever is smaller
93.5
93.5
Y<10
79.0
79.0
79.0
79.0

Table 2 to Subpart OOOOa of Part 60  -  Required Minimum SO2 Emission Reduction Efficiency (Zc)

H2S content of acid gas (Y), %
Sulfur feed rate (X), LT/D

2.0<X<5.0
5.0<X<15.0
15.0<X<300.0
X>300.0
Y>50
74.0
85.35X[0.0144]Y[0.0128] or 99.9, whichever is smaller
20<Y<50
74.0
85.35X[0.0144]Y[0.0128] or 97.5, whichever is smaller
97.5
10<Y<20
74.0
85.35X[0.0144]Y[0.0128]
or 90.8, whichever is smaller
90.8
90.8
Y<10
74.0
74.0
74.0
74.0

X = The sulfur feed rate from the sweetening unit (i.e., the H2S in the acid gas), expressed as sulfur, Mg/D(LT/D), rounded to one decimal place.
Y = The sulfur content of the acid gas from the sweetening unit, expressed as mole percent H2S (dry basis) rounded to one decimal place.
Z = The minimum required sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission reduction efficiency, expressed as percent carried to one decimal place. Zi refers to the reduction efficiency required at the initial performance test. Zc refers to the reduction efficiency required on a continuous basis after compliance with Zi has been demonstrated.
Table 3 to Subpart OOOOa of Part 60  -  Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart OOOOa
As stated in §60.5425a, you must comply with the following applicable General Provisions:

General Provisions Citation
Subject of Citation
Applies to subpart?
Explanation
§60.1
General applicability of the General Provisions
Yes

§60.2
Definitions
Yes
Additional terms defined in §60.5430a
§60.3
Units and abbreviations
Yes

§60.4
Address
Yes

§60.5
Determination of construction or modification
Yes

§60.6
Review of plans
Yes

§60.7
Notification and record keeping
Yes
Except that §60.7 only applies as specified in §60.5420a(a).
§60.8
Performance tests
Yes
Performance testing is required for control devices used on storage vessels, centrifugal compressors and pneumatic pumps.
§60.9
Availability of information
Yes

§60.10
State authority
Yes

§60.11
Compliance with standards and maintenance requirements
No
Requirements are specified in subpart OOOOa.
§60.12
Circumvention
Yes

§60.13
Monitoring requirements
Yes
Continuous monitors are required for storage vessels
§60.14
Modification
Yes
To the extent any provision in §60.14 conflicts with specific provisions in subpart OOOOa, it is superseded by subpart OOOOa provisions.
§60.15
Reconstruction
Yes
Except that §60.15(d) does not apply to wells, pneumatic controllers, pneumatic pumps, centrifugal compressors, reciprocating compressors or storage vessels.
§60.16
Priority list
Yes

§60.17
Incorporations by reference
Yes

§60.18
General control device and work practice requirements
Yes

§60.19
General notification and reporting requirement
Yes


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 22 (Friday, February 1, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7334-7336]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02209]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 105

[USCG-2012-0907]

Port Authority Access to Facility Vulnerability Assessments and
the Integration of Security Systems

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This notice requests comments from facility owners and
operators, State and local law enforcement agencies, port authorities,
relevant security industry participants, and all other interested
members of the public regarding how to best implement Section 822 of
the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010. In particular, this notice
discusses the Coast Guard's preliminary thoughts on how owners or
operators of certain facilities might make their Facility Vulnerability
Assessments available to certain law enforcement agencies and port
authorities, and integrate their facility security systems with
compatible

systems operated or maintained by certain law enforcement agencies and
the Coast Guard.

DATES: Comments and related material must either be submitted to our
online docket via http://www.regulations.gov on or before May 2, 2013
or reach the Docket Management Facility by that date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2012-0907 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or email Lieutenant Commander Jos[eacute] L. Ram[iacute]rez,
Office of Port and Facility Compliance, Cargo and Facility Division
(CG-FAC-2), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments and related material. All
comments received will be posted, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have
provided.
    Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include the
docket number for this notice (USCG-2012-0907) and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and
material online, or by fax, mail or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. We recommend that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of
your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding
your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
use ``USCG-2012-0907'' as your search term. Locate this notice in the
search results and click the ``Comment Now'' box to submit your
comment. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit
them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable
for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period.
    Viewing the comments: To view the comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and use ``USCG-2012-0907'' as your search term.
Filter the results by checking the box for ``Public Submissions'' on
the left side of the page. If you do not have access to the Internet,
you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of
Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. We have an agreement with the Department of
Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.
    Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a
Privacy Act, system of records notice regarding our public dockets in
the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).
    Public meeting: After considering public comments, we may hold one
or more future public meetings to provide another forum for public
comment. We will announce the time and place of any future public
meetings by a later notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    Section 822 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (Pub. L.
111-281, 124 Stat. 2905) (CGAA 2010) amended 46 U.S.C. 70102 by
imposing the following mandates: (1) the owner or operator of a
facility must make a current copy of the Facility Vulnerability
Assessment (FVA) available to the ``port authority with jurisdiction of
the facility'' and ``State or local law enforcement agencies;'' and (2)
the owner or operator of a facility must ``integrate, to the maximum
extent practical,'' the facility's security systems ``with compatible
systems operated or maintained by State, law enforcement agencies, and
the Coast Guard.'' Section 822 is intended to increase industry
stakeholder and government agency (local, State, and Federal)
collaboration efforts to identify, prevent, mitigate, and respond to
Transportation Security Incidents (TSIs) and other disasters. If the
Coast Guard undertakes a future rulemaking to implement Section 822, it
would apply to facilities regulated by the Coast Guard under the
Maritime Security Transportation Act of 2002 (MTSA).
    Existing Coast Guard regulations include a number of provisions
that require facility owners and operators to ensure the timely
involvement of law enforcement and emergency responders in the event of
a TSI or other disaster. Each Facility Security Assessment (FSA) must
contain provisions for contingency planning, emergency preparedness and
response, and communications capabilities (33 CFR 105.305). Facility
Security Officers (FSOs) are required to notify law enforcement
personnel and other emergency responders, as soon as possible, to
permit their timely response to any TSI (33 CFR 105.205(c)(16)). Each
facility access point must provide a primary and backup means of
contacting police, security control, or an emergency operations center
by telephone, cellular phone, portable radio, or other equivalent means
(33 CFR 105.235(c) and (d)). State and local emergency responders are
not required to obtain or possess a Transportation Worker
Identification Credential (TWIC) in order to gain unescorted access to
secure areas of a facility during an emergency situation (33 CFR
101.514(d)).
    While the Coast Guard believes that in most instances, the measures
detailed above are adequate to ensure the timely involvement of State
and local law enforcement and emergency responders, additional
regulations may be necessary to close potential gaps that might hinder
an appropriate emergency response to a TSI or other disaster.

Preliminary Alternatives Considered

    We have considered a number of possible ways to implement the
requirements in Section 822. We describe these approaches below to
inform the public of our preliminary thoughts on implementing Section
822 and to solicit public comments to gain a better understanding of
the issues that concern affected parties, as well as

current industry practices on facility interactions with port
authorities, State and local law enforcement agencies, and the Coast
Guard. We are also interested in any information and data about the
costs associated with these approaches as well as any potential
benefit. These comments may assist us in formulating policy as we
consider a future rulemaking to implement Section 822.

FVA Sharing Alternatives

     Require each MTSA-regulated facility owner or operator to
make a copy of the current FVA available to the cognizant Coast Guard
Captain of the Port, port authority, and State and local law
enforcement agencies, upon request. The owner or operator would share
the FVA via electronically secured transfer. Do facilities store FVAs
electronically?
    Are you able to save them as an encrypted or password-protected
file?
     Require each MTSA-regulated facility owner or operator to
proactively provide a copy of the current FVA to the port authority and
State and local law enforcement agencies at a prescribed time interval
(as opposed to making copies of FVAs available to the port authorities
and law enforcement upon request). The owner or operator would share
the FVA via electronically secured transfer.
    Are you able to encrypt or password-protect the FVA electronic copy
and/or deliver it on a password-protected CD, flash drive, or other
storage medium?
     Require each MTSA-regulated facility owner or operator to
share the current FVA with the port authority and State and local law
enforcement agencies annually at the annual exercise required under 33
CFR 105.220 or at a newly required annual FVA sharing meeting.
     Require each MTSA-regulated facility owner or operator to
share the current FVA with the port authority and State and local law
enforcement agencies during the regularly scheduled 5-year resubmission
process of the Facility Security Plan (FSP).
     In addition to the requirement to share the current FVA,
require each MTSA-regulated facility owner or operator to make the
Security Measures Summary (CG-6025) available to the relevant
government authorities and law enforcement agencies for review at the
end of the required annual exercise or equivalent (33 CFR 105.220).
     In addition to the requirement to share the current FVA,
require each MTSA-regulated facility owner or operator to update the
FSP to incorporate FVA-sharing measures.

Security System Integration Alternatives

     Require each MTSA-regulated facility owner or operator to
have and demonstrate via annual exercises the ability to provide manual
alerts regarding a TSI to appropriate State and local law enforcement
agencies and the Coast Guard.
    Is 15 minutes a reasonable estimate of the additional time needed
to comply with this requirement?
     Require each MTSA-regulated facility owner or operator to
have and demonstrate via annual exercises the ability to provide
automated alerts regarding a TSI to appropriate State and local law
enforcement agencies and the Coast Guard.
    Is 15 minutes a reasonable estimate of the additional time needed
to comply with this requirement?
     Require each MTSA-regulated facility owner or operator to
make security data feeds regarding a TSI (e.g., alerts, video feeds,
alarms, etc.) available to appropriate State and local law enforcement
agencies and the Coast Guard.
    Do appropriate levels of technology exist at both the facility and
receiving government agency to comply with this requirement, which
would consist of sharing telecommunications information such as
Internet addresses, phone numbers, passwords, and encryption codes?
     Require each MTSA-regulated facility owner or operator to
incorporate a technological solution that integrates their electronic
surveillance and communications systems with compatible systems
operated or maintained by the appropriate State and local law
enforcement agencies and the Coast Guard. There is a range of possible
methods for integrating security systems, including Internet
connectivity, dedicated telephone lines, and other forms of security
system integration.

Information Requested

    1. We request comments on the feasibility, costs, and benefits of
each of the preliminary alternatives described above. Please be as
specific as possible. For estimates of costs a break-out by specific
cost element would be preferable to a lump sum. For example, provide
separate estimates for the equipment, number of hours and type of
worker needed to install the equipment (i.e. master electrician, labor,
supervisor), number of hours and type of employee (i.e., trainer, mid-
level manager) to prepare and execute training, and on-going
maintenance costs. Cost estimates can be provided as ranges.
    2. We request comments as to whether there are any data,
literature, or studies that demonstrate the feasibility, costs, and
benefits of each of the preliminary alternatives described above.
    3. We request comments from MTSA-regulated facility owners and
operators regarding current industry practices with respect to security
system integration between the facility and State and local law
enforcement agencies, the Coast Guard and, emergency responders.
    4. We request comments as to whether the requirement to integrate
facility security systems with those of State and local law enforcement
agencies, the Coast Guard, and emergency responders should be limited
to only those MTSA-regulated facilities that are identified in risk-
based and other applicable types of analyses. If so, please identify
the characteristics of those facilities.
    5. Aside from the preliminary alternatives described above, please
provide any other alternatives on preferred ways to implement the
requirements in Section 822. For any such alternatives suggested,
please include information and data as to the feasibility, costs, and
benefits.
    6. We request any additional comments from interested parties on
the subject matter of this notice.
    This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 46 U.S.C.
70102(c) and 70124.

    Dated: January 25, 2013.
P.F. Thomas,
Director, Inspections and Compliance, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2013-02209 Filed 1-31-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 103 (Wednesday, May 29, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24777-24778]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11162]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EL18-182-000, ER18-2364-000, ER19-1428-000, ER13-2266-004,
ER18-1639-000, ER18-1639-002 and ER18-1639-003]

ISO New England Inc. and Constellation Mystic Power, LLC; Notice
of Staff-Led Public Meeting

    Take notice that Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission)
staff will convene a staff-led public meeting on Monday, July 15, 2019,
beginning at 10:00 a.m. (ET). The public meeting will be held in the
Commission Meeting Room at Commission headquarters, 888 First Street
NE, Washington, DC 20426. Commissioners may attend and participate.
    On July 2, 2018, the Commission directed the ISO New England Inc.
(ISO-NE) to submit permanent revisions to the ISO-NE Transmission,
Markets and Services Tariff (Tariff) reflecting improvements to its
market design to better address regional fuel security concerns,\1\
which are due on October 15, 2019.\2\ On April 22, 2019, ISO-NE, the
New England States Committee on Electricity, and the New England Power
Pool (NEPOOL) Participants Committee jointly requested a public meeting
to share with Commission staff information about efforts to develop
these proposed Tariff revisions without violating the Commission's ex
parte rules. This notice of public meeting is in response to that
request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ISO New England Inc., 164 FERC ] 61,003, at P 2 (2018).
    \2\ Notice of Extension of Time, Docket No. EL18-182-000 (March
18, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This staff-led public meeting will consist of three, 90-minute
presentations by ISO-NE, NEPOOL stakeholders, and representatives from
New England states with time for questions and answers reserved at the
end of the meeting. Questions will only be permitted from Commission
staff and Commissioners. Further information

related to this public meeting will be provided in a supplemental
notice.
    All interested persons may attend the public meeting. Registration
is not required. However, in-person attendees are encouraged to pre-
register on-line at: https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/07-15-19-form.asp. In-person attendees should allow time to pass through
building security procedures before the 10:00 a.m. start time of the
public meeting.
    The public meeting will be webcast. A link to the webcast of this
event will be available in the Commission Calendar of Events at
www.ferc.gov. The Capitol Connection provides technical support for
webcasts and offers the option of listening to the meeting via phone-
bridge for a fee. If you have any questions, visit http://www.CapitolConnection.org or call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The public meeting will not be transcribed. PowerPoint slides or
printed documents used in the public meeting will be entered into the
record in Docket No. EL18-182-000.
    Commission public meetings are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free 1-866-208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    For more information about this public meeting, please contact
Frank Swigonski by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information related to logistics, please
contact Sarah McKinley at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: May 21, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-11162 Filed 5-28-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 72 (Friday, April 13, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15977-15982]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07740]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0072; FRL-9975-77]

Sulfentrazone; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

DATES: This regulation is effective April 13, 2018. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before June 12, 2018, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0072, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0072 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
June 12, 2018. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0072, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of June 8, 2017 (82 FR 26641) (FRL-9961-
14), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
6E8532) by IR-4, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500
College Road East, Suite 201-W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition
requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing tolerances
for residues of the herbicide sulfentrazone in or on Chia, dry seed at
0.15 parts per million (ppm); Teff, forage at 0.50 ppm; Teff, grain at
0.15 ppm; Teff, hay at 0.30 ppm; Teff, straw at 1.5 ppm; Stalk and stem
vegetable subgroup 22A at 0.15 ppm; Vegetable, brassica, head and stem,
group 5-16 at 0.20 ppm; Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B at 0.60
ppm; and Nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.15 ppm. The petition also
requested to remove the tolerances for Asparagus at 0.15 ppm; Brassica,
head and stem, subgroup 5A at 0.20 ppm; Brassica, leafy greens,
subgroup 5B at 0.40 ppm; Nut, tree, group 14 at 0.15 ppm;

Pistachio at 0.15 ppm; and Turnip, tops at 0.60 ppm. That document
referenced a summary of the petition prepared by FMC, the registrant,
which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. Comments
were received on the notice of filing. EPA's response to these comments
is discussed in Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for sulfentrazone including
exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action.
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with sulfentrazone
follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    Subchronic and chronic toxicity studies in rats, mice, and dogs
identified the hematopoietic system as the target of sulfentrazone.
Sulfentrazone inhibits the enzyme protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO) in
target plants, and the results of subchronic and chronic toxicity
studies in mammalian systems are consistent with PPO inhibition.
Disruption of heme biosynthesis was indicated by signs of anemia, and
decreases in hematocrit (Hct), hemoglobin (HGB), and mean corpuscular
volume (MCV) in mice, rats, and dogs at comparable dose levels from
short- through long-term exposures without a significant increase in
severity.
    Sulfentrazone caused developmental effects when administered via
the oral (rats and rabbits) and dermal (rat only) routes of exposure.
Developmental effects in rats and rabbits consisted of reductions in
the number of implantations in rats, and increases in early resorptions
and reduction in live fetuses per litter in rats and rabbits. Surviving
rat fetuses exhibited reduced/delayed skeletal ossifications, and
decreased fetal body weights. Developmental effects in rats were seen
in the absence of maternal toxicity. In contrast with the rat studies,
developmental effects in rabbits were observed at a maternally toxic
dose, where clinical signs of toxicity included hematuria (red blood
cells in urine), abortions, and decreased body-weight gains. In the 2-
generation reproductive toxicity study in rats, developmental effects
included an increased duration of gestation, reduced prenatal viability
(fetal and litter), reduced litter size, and an increased number of
stillborn pups. Pup body-weight deficits, along with reduced pup and
litter postnatal survival, were also observed. All of the offspring
effects were reported in the presence of mild maternal toxicity
(decreased body weight and body-weight gain, particularly in F1
females).
    No systemic toxicity was seen via the dermal route up to the limit
dose in a 28-day dermal toxicity study in adult non-pregnant rabbits.
In a dermal developmental study in rats, there was an increased
quantitative fetal susceptibility. While no maternal effects were
observed up to the highest dose tested, fetal effects were observed at
this dose, and consisted of decreased body weights, increased
incidences of fetal variations, hypoplastic or wavy ribs, incompletely
ossified lumbar vertebral arches, incompletely ossified ischia or
pubis, and a reduced number of thoracic vertebral and rib ossification
sites.
    In the 26-day inhalation toxicity study, effects that were
considered treatment related and adverse occurred only at the highest
concentration tested. Systemic effects at this concentration consisted
of significant reductions in red blood cell (RBC) parameters in both
sexes. Portal-of-entry effects in this study consisted of an increased
incidence of minimal nasal respiratory epithelial hyperplasia in both
sexes as well as minimal laryngeal epithelial attenuation in all test
material exposure groups. The effects on hematological parameters were
reversible after 28 days of recovery, while the nasal injury persisted.
    In an acute neurotoxicity (ACN) study in rats, effects consisted of
an increased incidence of clinical signs of toxicity (staggered gait,
splayed hind limbs, and abdominal gripping), changes in functional-
observation battery (FOB) parameters, and decreased motor activity at a
high dose level. Complete recovery was observed by day 14, and there
was no evidence of neuropathology. In a rat subchronic neurotoxicity
(SCN) study, clinical signs of toxicity, increased motor activity, and/
or decreased body weights, body-weight gain, and food consumption were
also observed with no evidence of neuropathology. A published, non-
guideline developmental toxicity study in the rat did not conclusively
demonstrate developmental neurotoxicity and contained several
shortcomings that limit its use for regulatory purposes, including the
lack of a no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) (DeCastro VL,
Destefani CR, Diniz C, Poli P., 2007, Evaluation of neurodevelopmental
effects on rats exposed prenatally to sulfentrazone. Neurotoxicology
28(6):1249-59). The reported effects involving measures of physical and
reflex development are likely secondary effects reflective of the poor
general state of the offspring as reported in the rat two-generation
reproductive toxicity study at similar dose levels but with a well-
defined NOAEL.
    In the 28-day rat immunotoxicity study, there were no effects on
the immune system and systemic effects consisted of reduced body
weight, and increased absolute and relative spleen weights at the
highest dose tested. Carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice showed no
evidence of increased incidence of tumor formation due to treatment
with sulfentrazone, and the EPA has classified sulfentrazone as not
likely to be carcinogenic to humans. The available mutagenicity studies
indicate that sulfentrazone is weakly clastogenic in the in vitro mouse
lymphoma assay in the absence of S9 activation. There is no evidence
that sulfentrazone is mutagenic in bacterial cells or clastogenic in
male or female mice in vivo.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by sulfentrazone as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the

toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the
document titled Sulfentrazone--Human Health Risk Assessment for a
Section 3 Registration Request to Add New Uses on Chia and Teff; an
Amended Use on Mint; and Crop Group Conversions for Tree Nut Group 14-
12, Stalk and Stem Vegetable Subgroup 22A; Vegetable, Brassica, Head
and Stem, Group 5-16; and Brassica, Leafy Greens, Subgroup 4-16B on
pages 26-31 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0072.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for sulfentrazone used for
human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule
published in the Federal Register of September 12, 2014 (79 FR 54620)
(FRL-9915-47).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to sulfentrazone, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing sulfentrazone
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.498. EPA assessed dietary exposures from
sulfentrazone in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. Such effects were identified
for sulfentrazone and EPA performed separate acute risk assessments for
females 13 to 49 years old and for the general population, including
infants and children, based on different endpoints and acute
population-adjusted doses (aPADs). In estimating acute dietary
exposures, EPA used the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model, Food
Consumption Intake Database (DEEM-FCID, ver. 3.16), which incorporates
consumption data from United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in
America, NHANES/WWEIA; 2003-2008). As to residue levels in food, EPA
assumed tolerance-level residues, 100 percent crop treated (PCT), and
DEEM (ver. 7.81) default processing factors.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment, EPA used DEEM-FCID, ver. 3.16, which incorporated
consumption data from the USDA's NHANES/WWEIA; 2003-2008. As to residue
levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-level residues, 100 PCT, and DEEM
(ver. 7.81) default processing factors.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that sulfentrazone does not pose a cancer risk to humans.
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing
cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue or PCT information in the dietary
assessment for sulfentrazone. Tolerance-level residues and 100 PCT were
assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for sulfentrazone in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of sulfentrazone. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.
    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM
GW), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of
sulfentrazone for acute exposures are estimated to be 37.3 parts per
billion (ppb) for surface water and 134 ppb for ground water; and for
chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 5.3
ppb for surface water and 98 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For the acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 134 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water. For the chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 98 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    Sulfentrazone is currently registered for the following uses that
could result in residential exposures: Residential home lawns/turf and
recreational turf, such as golf courses. EPA assessed residential
exposures using the following assumptions: Adults were assessed for
potential short-term dermal and inhalation handler exposures from
applying sulfentrazone to residential turf/home lawns and for short-
term post-application dermal exposure from contact with treated
residential and recreational turf.
    Children, ages 11 < 16 years old and 6 < 11 years old, were
assessed for post-application dermal exposure from contact with treated
residential and recreational turf (home lawns and golf courses).
Children, ages 1 < 2 years old, were assessed for post-application
short-term dermal and incidental oral exposures (hand-to-mouth, object-
to-mouth, and episodic ingestion of granules), as well as short-term
incidental oral soil ingestion scenarios from contact with residential
turf/home lawns.
    The recommended adult residential exposure scenario for use in the
aggregate assessment reflects short-term dermal exposure from
applications to turf via backpack sprayer. The recommended residential
exposure scenario for use in the combined short-term aggregate
assessment for children ages 1 < 2 years old reflects dermal and hand-
to-mouth exposures from post-application exposure to turf applications.
This combination should be considered a protective estimate of
children's exposure to pesticides used on turf since the incidental
oral

scenarios are considered inter-related, likely occurring interspersed
amongst each other across time; therefore, combining these scenarios
would be overly conservative because of the conservative nature of each
individual assessment. Further, this scenario is considered protective
of potential post-application exposures to children, ages 6 < 11 and 11
< 16 years old, as children 1-2 years old represent the population
subgroup for children with the greatest exposure, and is therefore
considered protective of other children population subgroups.
Intermediate-term exposure is not expected.
    Chronic exposures are not expected and were not assessed. Finally,
residential handler and/or post-application inhalation risk estimates
were not combined with dermal or oral risk estimates in the aggregate
risk assessment since the toxicological effects in the inhalation
toxicological study were portal-of-entry and were different from those
seen in the dermal and oral toxicological studies. Further information
regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential
exposures may be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found sulfentrazone to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and sulfentrazone does not appear
to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
sulfentrazone does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is evidence of
increased quantitative susceptibility following in utero exposure in
the oral and dermal rat developmental toxicity studies. Developmental
effects, including decreased fetal body weights and reduced/delayed
skeletal ossifications, were observed at doses that were not maternally
toxic. In the 2-generation reproduction study in rats, offspring
effects such as decreased body weights and decreased litter survival
were observed at a slightly maternally toxic dose (slightly decreased
body-weight gain), indicating possible slightly increased qualitative
susceptibility.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for sulfentrazone is complete.
    ii. In the ACN and SCN studies, observed effects included changes
in motor activity and FOB parameters, clinical signs, and body-weight
decrements. There is low concern for neurotoxicity since:
    1. Effects were seen at relatively high doses;
    2. Effects occurred in the absence of neuropathology;
    3. There is no evidence of neurotoxicity in other available studies
in the toxicity database;
    4. Effects are well-characterized with clearly established NOAEL/
LOAEL values; and
    5. The selected PODs are protective of these effects.
    iii. There was evidence for increased quantitative susceptibility
following oral and dermal exposures in the developmental toxicity
studies in rats. Although developmental toxicity was observed at lower
doses than maternal toxicity in both studies in the rat, the concern is
low based on the following considerations:
    1. The toxicology database for assessing pre- and postnatal
susceptibility is complete;
    2. There are clear NOAELs and LOAELs for the developmental effects
observed via both the oral and dermal routes;
    3. The PODs used for assessing dietary and dermal exposure risks
are based on developmental and/or offspring toxicity;
    4. The portal-of-entry effects seen in the 26-day inhalation study
are protective of the developmental toxicity; and
    5. There are no residual uncertainties for pre- and/or postnatal
toxicity.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to sulfentrazone in drinking water. EPA used
similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure
of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These
assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by
sulfentrazone.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to sulfentrazone will occupy 1.1% of the aPAD for all infants less than
1-year-old and 6.7% of the aPAD for females 13-49 years old, the
population groups receiving the greatest exposure.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
sulfentrazone from food and water will utilize 7.0% of the cPAD for
children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding
residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to

residues of sulfentrazone is not expected.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Sulfentrazone
is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term
residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is
appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with
short-term residential exposures to sulfentrazone. Using the exposure
assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has
concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential
exposures result in an aggregate MOE of 490 for adults. Because EPA's
level of concern for sulfentrazone is a MOE of 100 or below, this MOE
is not of concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level). An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however,
sulfentrazone is not registered for any use patterns that would result
in intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term risk is
assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term residential
exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under
the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as
the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no further assessment
of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic
dietary risk assessment for evaluating intermediate-term risk for
sulfentrazone.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, sulfentrazone is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to sulfentrazone residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology, gas chromatography (GC), is
available to enforce the tolerance expression. The method may be
requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental
Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address: [email protected].

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    No Codex MRLs have been established for sulfentrazone on the crops
cited in this document.

C. Response to Comments

    Two comments were received in response to the notice of filing. One
was against the establishment of any tolerances for sulfentrazone and
the other stated ``deny this application to change the tolerance on
this product.''
    Although the Agency recognizes that some individuals believe that
pesticides should be banned on agricultural crops, the existing legal
framework provided by section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) authorizes EPA to establish tolerances when it
determines that the tolerance is safe. Upon consideration of the
validity, completeness, and reliability of the available data as well
as other factors the FFDCA requires EPA to consider, EPA has determined
that these sulfentrazone tolerances are safe. The commenters have
provided no information supporting a contrary conclusion.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of sulfentrazone
in or on Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B at 0.60 ppm; chia, seed
at 0.15 ppm; nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.15 ppm; stalk and stem
vegetable subgroup 22A at 0.15 ppm; teff, forage at 0.50 ppm; teff,
grain at 0.15 ppm; teff, hay at 0.30 ppm; teff, straw at 1.5 ppm; and
vegetable, Brassica, head and stem, group 5-16 at 0.20 ppm. In
addition, the following existing tolerances are removed as unnecessary
since they are superseded by the new tolerances: asparagus; Brassica,
head and stem, subgroup 5A; Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B; nut,
tree, group 14; pistachio; and turnip, tops.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), nor is it considered a
regulatory action under Executive Order 13771, entitled ``Reducing
Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs'' (82 FR 9339, February 3,
2017). This action does not contain any information collections subject
to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), nor does it require any special considerations under
Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal

governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order
13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not
apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any
enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et
seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: April 3, 2018.
Michael Goodis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.498, in the table in paragraph (a)(2):
0
i. Remove the entries ``Asparagus''; ``Brassica, head and stem,
subgroup 5A''; and ``Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B''.
0
ii. Add alphabetically the entries ``Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup
4-16B'' and ``Chia, seed''.
0
iii. Remove the entry ``Nut, tree, group 14''.
0
iv. Add alphabetically the entry ``Nut, tree, group 14-12''.
0
v. Remove the entry ``Pistachio''.
0
vi. Add alphabetically the entries ``Stalk and stem vegetable subgroup
22A''; ``Teff, forage''; ``Teff, grain''; ``Teff, hay''; and ``Teff,
straw''.
0
vii. Remove the entry ``Turnip, tops''.
0
viii. Add alphabetically the entry ``Vegetable, Brassica, head and
stem, group 5-16''.
    The additions read as follows:

Sec.  180.498   Sulfentrazone; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *

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

                                * * * * *
Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B.........................     0.60
Chia, seed.....................................................     0.15

                                * * * * *
Nut, tree, group 14-12.........................................     0.15

                                * * * * *
Stalk and stem vegetable subgroup 22A..........................     0.15

                                * * * * *
Teff, forage...................................................     0.50
Teff, grain....................................................     0.15
Teff, hay......................................................     0.30
Teff, straw....................................................      1.5

                                * * * * *
Vegetable, Brassica, head and stem, group 5-16.................     0.20

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-07740 Filed 4-12-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Response to Section 114 letter on terms of GSK Sale of CFCs Confidential Business Information located at EPA headquarters 1310 L St NW