[Federal Register: November 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 215)]
[Notices]
[Page 65845-65846]
[DOCID:fr05no08-39]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings  1

October 30, 2008.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1126-002; ER07-100-002; ER08-1128-002; ER08-
1129-002; ER08-1130-002; ER08-1131-002; ER08-1134-002; ER08-1135-002;
ER08-1136-002; ER08-1137-002; ER08-1139-002.
    Applicants: Georgia-Pacific Brewton LLC; Koch Supply & Trading, LP;
Brunswick Cellulose, Inc.; Georgia-Pacific Cedar Springs LLC; Georgia-
Pacific Con Ops LLC Port Hudson; Georgia-Pacific Cons Prods LP Naheola;
Georgia-Pacific Cons Prods LP Savannah; Georgia-Pacific LLC Crosset;
Georgia-Pacific Monticello LLC; Leaf River Cellulose, LLC.
    Description: Georgia-Pacific Applicants et al. request a one-time
waiver of Order No. 697 filing requirement under ER08-1126 et al.
    Filed Date: 10/22/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081028-0141.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 12, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-152-000
    Applicants: Pennsylvania Power Company.
    Description: Pennsylvania Power Co submits a Notice of Cancellation
of the Electric Service Agreement ( Rate Schedule 48) dated 8/8/94 with
Borough of Wampum, PA under ER09-152.
    Filed Date: 10/29/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081030-0051.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 19, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-153-000.
    Applicants: Southern Company Services, Inc.
    Description: Alabama Power Co. et al. submits materials in support
of its request for authorization to use the Companies' updated
depreciation rates in the calculation of charges for services provided
under ER09-153.
    Filed Date: 10/29/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081030-0052.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 19, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-154-000.
    Applicants: Southern Company Services, Inc.
    Description: Alabama Power Co. et al. submits materials in support
of its request for authorization to use updated depreciation rates in
the calculation of charges for service provided under ER09-154.
    Filed Date: 10/29/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081030-0053.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 19, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-155-000.
    Applicants: Southern Company Services, Inc.
    Description: Alabama Power Co. et al. submits materials in support
of its request for authorization to use updated depreciation rates in
the calculation of charges for service provided under ER09-155.
    Filed Date: 10/29/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081030-0054.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 19, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-156-000.
    Applicants: Southern Company Services, Inc.
    Description: Alabama Power Co. et al. submits materials in support
of its request for authorization to use updated depreciation rates in
the calculation of charges for service provided under ER09-154.
    Filed Date: 10/29/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081030-0055.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 19, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-157-000.
    Applicants: The American Electric Power Service Corp.
    Description: AEP Operating Companies submits a third revision to

the Interconnection and Local Delivery Service Agreement under ER09-
157.
    Filed Date: 10/29/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081030-0056.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 19, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-158-000.
    Applicants: Allegheny Power.
    Description: Allegheny Power submits Attachment H-11A to Open
Access Transmission Tariff of PJM Interconnection, LLC, FERC Electric
Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume 1 under ER09-158.
    Filed Date: 10/29/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081030-0057.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 19, 2008.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES08-62-000; ES08-63-000; ES08-64-000.
    Applicants: PSEG Fossil LLC; PSEG Nuclear LLC; PSEG Energy
Resources & Trade LLC.
    Description: PSEG Power Companies Supplemental Filing to the
September 11, 2008 Application for Renewal and Expansion of
Authorization to Issue Securities in Connection with Credit Facilities
under ES08-62, et al.
    Filed Date: 10/30/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081030-5072.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 10, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ES09-9-000.
    Applicants: Potomac Edison Company.
    Description: Potomac Edison Company Application Under Section 204
to Issue Short-Term Debt Securities in ES09-9.
    Filed Date: 10/30/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081030-5102.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, November 20, 2008.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-26376 Filed 11-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 130)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 37155-37156]
[DOCID:fr09jy07-16]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1910

[Docket No. OSHA-2007-0032 (Formerly Docket No. OSHA-S031-2006-0665 and
OSHA Docket No. S-031)]
RIN 1218-AC09

Explosives; Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),
Department of Labor.

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA is extending the comment period for its proposed standard
on Explosives for an additional sixty (60) days until September 10,
2007.

DATES: Written comments must be submitted (postmarked or sent) by
September 10, 2007.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. OSHA-2007-
0032, by any of the following methods:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal

eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions on-line for making
electronic submissions.
    Fax: If your comments, including attachments, do not exceed 10
pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger or courier service:
You must submit three copies of your comments and attachments to the
OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0032, U.S. Department of
Labor, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> (OSHA's TTY number is<PHONE_NUMBER>).
Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger and courier service) are
accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket Office's normal
business hours, 8:15 a.m.-4:45 p.m., E.T.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and the
docket number for this rulemaking (Docket No. OSHA-2007-0032). All
comments, including any personal information you provide, are placed in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions you about

submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
birthdates. For further information on submitting comments, plus
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: To read or download comments and materials submitted in
response to this Federal Register notice, go to Docket No. OSHA-2007-
0032 at http://www.regulations.gov or at the OSHA Docket Office at the address above. All comments and submissions are listed in the http://

http://www.regulations.gov index, however, some information (e.g., copyrighted

material) is not publicly available to read or download through that
Web page. All comments and submissions, including copyrighted material,
are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
    For information on accessing exhibits referenced in the Explosives
proposal, see the ``Public Participation'' heading in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
    Electronic copies of this Federal Register document are available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Copies also are available from the OSHA

Office of Publications, Room N-3101, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210;

telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. This document, as well as news releases and
other relevant information, also are available at OSHA's Web page at
http://www.osha.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information and press
inquiries: Kevin Ropp, Office of Communications, Room N-3647, OSHA,
U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20210; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. For technical inquiries: Donald
Pittenger, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Room N-3609, OSHA,
U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20210; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Extension of Comment Period

    On April 13, 2007, OSHA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
to revise the Explosives standard (72 FR 18792). In that notice, the
Agency provided the public with ninety (90) days to submit written
comments, until July 12, 2007. Several interested persons have
requested an extension of the deadline for submitting comments
explaining that they needed additional time to gather information and
provide a thorough review and response to the proposed standard. OSHA
is providing an additional sixty (60) days for the submission of
comments. Accordingly, written comments must now be submitted (sent or
postmarked) by September 10, 2007. Granting additional time to comment
on the proposed rule will allow these and other stakeholders time to
provide more thorough comments on the proposed rule, which, in turn,
will give OSHA a more complete record.

II. Submission of Comments and Access to Comments

    You may submit comments in response to this document (1)
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal

eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (FAX); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number for this rulemaking (Docket No. OSHA-2007-
0032). You may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document
files electronically. If, instead, you wish to mail additional
materials in reference to an electronic or fax submission, you must
submit three copies to the OSHA Docket Office (see ADDRESSES section).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by name, date, and docket number so OSHA can attach them to your
comments.
    Because of security-related procedures, the use of regular mail may
cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information
about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger or courier service, please contact the OSHA
Docket Office (see ADDRESSES section).
    Comments and submissions in response to this Federal Register
notice are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov (Docket

No. OSHA-2007-0032). Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
date of birth.
    In the Explosives proposal, OSHA referenced a number of supporting
materials. Those references are posted in both Docket No. OSHA-S031-
2006-0665 (which is available at http://www.regulations.gov) and OSHA Docket No. S-031 (which is available at http://dockets.osha.gov).

    Although all submissions in response to this Federal Register
notice and all supporting materials cited in the Explosives proposal
are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov and http://dockets.osha.gov
 indexes, some information (e.g., copyrighted material)
is not publicly available to read or download from that Web page. All
submissions and supporting materials, including copyrighted material,
are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
Information on using the http://www.regulations.gov Web page to submit

comments is available at the Web page's User Tips link. Contact the
OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not available
through the Web pages and for assistance in using the Internet to
locate docket submissions.
    Electronic copies of this Federal Register document are available
at http://www.regulations.gov. This document, as well as news releases

and other relevant information, also are available at OSHA's Web page
at http://www.osha.gov.

Authority and Signature

    This document was prepared under the authority of Edwin G. Foulke,
Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health,
U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20210, pursuant to Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the OSH Act of 1970 (29
U.S.C. 653, 655, 657), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2002 (67 FR
65008), Secretary of Labor's Order 5-2007 (72 FR 31160 (6/5/2007)), and
29 CFR part 1911.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on July 2, 2007.
Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. E7-13198 Filed 7-6-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 57 (Monday, March 25, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11086-11087]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05664]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0090; FRL-9990-83]

Potassium Chloride; Receipt of Application for Emergency
Exemption, Solicitation of Public Comment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has received a quarantine exemption request from the
Maryland Department of Agriculture to use the pesticide potassium
chloride to treat Hyde's Quarry in Carroll County, Maryland, to control
zebra mussels. The Applicant proposes the use of a new chemical which
has not been registered by EPA as a pesticide. EPA is soliciting public
comment before making the decision whether to grant the exemption.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 9, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID)

number EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0090, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/where-send-comments-epa-dockets.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticide
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. What action is the Agency taking?

    Under section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136p), at the discretion of the EPA
Administrator, a Federal or State agency may be exempted from any
provision of FIFRA if the EPA Administrator determines that emergency
conditions exist which require the exemption. Maryland Department of
Agriculture has requested the EPA Administrator to issue a quarantine
exemption for the use of potassium chloride (CAS No. 7447-40-7) in
Hyde's Quarry in Carroll County, Maryland, to control zebra mussels.
Information in accordance with 40 CFR part 166 was submitted as part of
this request.
    As part of this request, the Applicant asserts that zebra mussels
need to be eradicated in this body of water to prevent the
establishment and spread of this aquatic invasive species. The mussels
have a variety of detrimental environmental, economic, and recreational
impacts. Without treatment it is likely that the mussels will establish
a reproducing, self-sustaining population, which would, in turn, serve
as another source population and possibly contribute to the infestation
of other aquatic areas. The Applicant states that the requested
chemical provides the best efficacy for the desired result with the
best economic and environmental feasibility and least impact to human
health and the environment.
    The Applicant proposes to treat Hyde's Quarry in Carroll County,
Maryland, containing an estimated 110-115 million gallons of water. The
Applicant proposes to use a 20% potassium chloride solution mixed from
muriate of potash and water. Applications will be made from a boat
using a specially designed diffuser assembly to obtain a quarry-wide
concentration of 100 parts per million over a period of approximately
14 days. This equates to approximately 8,140 gallons of stock solution
introduced daily for the anticipated introduction of approximately
114,000 gallons over the 14-day treatment period. It is anticipated
that only one application will be made, but up to four may be made if
needed.
    This notice does not constitute a decision by EPA on the
application itself. The regulations governing FIFRA section 18 require
publication of a notice of receipt of an application for a quarantine
exemption proposing use of a new chemical (i.e., an active ingredient)
which has not been registered by EPA for use as a pesticide. The notice
provides an opportunity for public comment on the application.
    The Agency will review and consider all comments received during
the comment period in determining whether to issue the quarantine
exemption requested by the Maryland Department of Agriculture.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: March 15, 2019.
Daniel Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2019-05664 Filed 3-22-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


6/25/07

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

HUMAN STUDIES REVIEW BOARD (HSRB)

JUNE 27-29, 2007 *

PUBLIC MEETING

HSRB WEB SITE   http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/

Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Docket Number: EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0403

EPA HUMAN STUDIES REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS AND CONSULTANTS

Chair

Celia B. Fisher, Ph.D.

Marie Ward Doty Professor of Psychology

Director, Center for Ethics Education

Fordham University

Department of Psychology, Dealy Hall 117F

441 East Fordham Road

Bronx, NY

Vice Chair

William S. Brimijoin, Ph.D.

Chair and Professor

Molecular Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics

Mayo Foundation

200 First Street SW

Rochester, MN

Members

Alicia Carriquiry, Ph.D.

Professor

Department of Statistics

Iowa State University

Snedecor Hall, Ames, IA 50011-1210

Ames, IA

Gary L. Chadwick, PharmD, MPH, CIP

Associate Provost

Director, Office for Human Subjects Protection

University of Rochester

601 Elmwood Avenue

Rochester, NY

Janice Chambers, Ph.D., D.A.B.T.

William L. Giles Distinguished Professor

Director, Center for Environmental Health Sciences

College of Veterinary Medicine

Mississippi State University

PO Box 6100

Wise Center

Spring Street

Mississippi State, MS

Richard Fenske, Ph.D., MPH

Professor

Dept of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences

1959 Northeast Pacific Street

F 463

University of Washington

Seattle WA

Susan S. Fish, PharmD, MPH

Professor, Biostatistics & Epidemiology

Boston University School of Public Health

Co-Director, MA in Clinical Investigation

Boston University School of Medicine

715 Albany St (T-4E)

Boston, MA

Suzanne C. Fitzpatrick, Ph.D., DABT

Senior Science Policy Analyst

Office of the Commissioner

Office of Science and Health Coordination

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

5600 Fishers Lane

Rockville, MD

Kannan Krishnan, Ph.D.

Professor

Département de santé environnementale et santé au travail

Faculté de médicine

Université de Montréal

2375 chemin de la Côte Ste-Catherine, Room 4105

Montréal, QC, H3T 1A8, Canada

KyungMann Kim, Ph.D., CCRP

Professor & Associate Chair

Department of Biostatistics & Medical Informatics

School of Medicine and Public Health

University of Wisconsin-Madison

600 Highland Ave, Bx 4675

Madison, WI

Michael D. Lebowitz, Ph.D.

Research Professor of Medicine & Epidemiology/Public Health

2528 W. Criswell Ct.

Tucson, AZ

Lois D. Lehman-Mckeeman, Ph.D.

Distinguished Research Fellow, Discovery Toxicology

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company

PO Box 4000, Mail Stop H24-03

Rt. 206 and Province Line Roads

Princeton, NJ

Jerry A. Menikoff, M.D.

National Institute of Health

Office of Human Subjects Research

10 Center Drive, MSC 1154

Building 10, Room 2C146

Bethesda, MD

Sean Philpott, Ph.D., M.Bioethics

Policy and Ethics Director

Global Campaign for

Microbicides

Program for Appropriate Technology in Health

1800 K Street NW

Washington D.C.

Richard R. Sharp, PhD

Assistant Professor of Medicine

Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy

Baylor College of Medicine

One Baylor Plaza

Houston, TX

Consultants

Dallas E. Johnson, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Department of Statistics

Kansas State University

1812 Denholm Drive

Manhattan, KS

Mr. Paul Hamey

Principal Scientist – Human Exposure Assessment

Pesticides Safety Directorate

Mallard House

Kings Pool

3 Peasholme Green

York, United Kingdom

William Popendorf, Ph.D.

Professor

Department of Biology

Utah State University

5305 Old Main Hill

Logan, UT

  PAGE  4


J-22-0014-0015 Sanitized Support Documents Index:
 J-22-0014 Sanitized Biotech Form (linked)
 J-22-0015 Sanitized Biotech Form (linked)
 J-22-0014-0015 Sanitized Determination Document (linked)
 J-22-0014-0015 Sanitized Risk Assessment Report (attached)


[Federal Register: December 29, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 250)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 78392-78394]
[DOCID:fr29de06-21]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0357; FRL-8264-3]
RIN 2060-AO03

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) Operations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On December 15, 1995, EPA issued national emission standards
for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) under section 112 of the Clean
Air Act for shipbuilding and ship repair (surface coating) operations
(subpart II). The NESHAP requires existing and new major sources to
control emissions of hazardous air pollutants to the extent achievable
by the use of maximum achievable control technology. The proposal is
intended to close an unintended gap in the scope of activities subject
to the NESHAP by amending the definition of ``ship'' to include all
marine or fresh-water vessels that are either (1) 20 meters or more in
length regardless of the purpose for which the vessel is constructed or
used, or (2) less than 20 meters in length and designed and built
specifically for military or commercial purposes. All shipbuilding and
ship repair coating operations performed on ``ships,'' as so defined,
are subject to subpart II if they take place at an ``affected source,''
as defined in 40 CFR 63.782. The only exception is that this NESHAP
shall not be construed to apply to coating activities that are subject
to emission limitations or work practices under the NESHAP for boat
manufacturing at 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV. We have also added a
definition of ``commercial'' to clarify the types of nonmilitary
vessels less than 20 meters that we consider to be ships. The amended
definition of ``ship'' renders the term ``pleasure craft'' unnecessary
and the amendments, therefore, eliminate the use of that term in 40 CFR
part 63, subpart II.

DATES: Comments. Written comments must be received on or before January
29, 2007 unless a public hearing is requested by January 8, 2007. If a
public hearing is requested, written comments must be received on or
before February 12, 2007.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing, a public hearing will be held on January 16, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2002-0093, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions

for submitting comments.
     E-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> and<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: Air and
Radiation Docket (6102T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20460. Please include a total of two copies.
     Hand Delivery: In person or by courier, deliver comments
to: Air and Radiation Docket (6102T), EPA West, Room B-102, 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. Please include a total of two copies.
    We request that you also send a separate copy of each comment to
the contact person listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2004-0357, (Legacy No. A-92-11). EPA's policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public docket without change and may
be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any

personal information provided, unless the comment includes information
claimed to be confidential business information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit
information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or deliver information identified

as CBI only to the following address: Mr. Roberto Morales, OAQPS
Document Control Officer, EPA (C404-02), Attention Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2004-0357, (Legacy No. A-92-11), Research Triangle Park, NC
27711. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim
to be CBI.
    The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,

which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov,

your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

    Docket. All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket,

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0093, EPA West, Room B-102, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202)
566-1742.

    NOTE: The EPA Docket Center suffered damage due to flooding
during the last week of June 2006. The Docket Center is continuing
to operate. However, during the cleanup, there will be temporary
changes to Docket Center telephone numbers, addresses, and hours of
operation for people who wish to make hand deliveries or visit the
Public Reading Room to view documents. Consult EPA's Federal
Register notice at 71 FR 38147 (July 5, 2006) or the EPA Web site at
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm for current information on

docket operations, locations, and telephone numbers. The Docket
Center's mailing address for U.S. mail and the procedure for
submitting comments to http://www.regulations.gov are not affected by the

flooding and will remain the same.

    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at 10
a.m. at the EPA's Environmental Research Center Auditorium, Research
Triangle Park, NC, or at an alternate site nearby.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information contact Dr.
Mohamed Serageldin, EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Sector Policies and Programs Division, Natural Resources and Commerce
Group (E143-03), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number
(919) 541-2379; fax

number<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. The regulated category
and entities affected by this action include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Category                  Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry........................  Facilities that are engaged in
                                   shipbuilding and ship repair
                                   operations. The term ship means all
                                   marine or fresh-water vessels that
                                   are either (1) 20 meters or more in
                                   length regardless of the purpose for
                                   which the vessel is constructed or
                                   used, or (2) that are less than 20
                                   meters in length and are designed and
                                   built specifically for military or
                                   commercial purposes. This includes,
                                   but is not limited to, all military
                                   and Coast Guard vessels, commercial
                                   cargo and passenger (cruise) ships,
                                   ferries, tankers, container ships,
                                   patrol and pilot boats, yachts, and
                                   dredges.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: An offshore oil and gas drilling platform is not considered a ship
                    for purposes of this regulation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal government..............  Federal Agencies which undertake
                                   shipbuilding or repair operations see
                                   above) such as the Navy and Coast
                                   Guard.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
rule.
    To determine whether your facility, company, business,
organization, etc., is regulated by this action, you should carefully
examine all of the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.781 of the rule,
as well as in the direct final rule. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this rule to a particular activity,
consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
    Submitting CBI. Do not submit information which you claim to be CBI
to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or

all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in
a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or
CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-
ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. Information so
marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set
forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the
comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment
that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted
for inclusion in the public docket.
    Public Hearing. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or
inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact Dr.
Mohamed Serageldin, EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Sector Policies and Programs Division, Natural Resources and Commerce
Group (E143-03), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number
(919) 541-2379, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>at least 2
days in advance of the potential date of the public hearing. Persons
interested in attending the public hearing must also call Dr.
Serageldin to verify the time, date, and location of the hearing. The
public hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity to
present data, views, or arguments concerning these proposed emission
standards.
    World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of this proposal will also be available through the
http://WWW. Following the Administrator's signature, a copy of this action

will be posted on EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN) policy and
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/.
 The TTN at EPA's Web site provides information

and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
    Direct Final Rule. The proposed amendments appear in the Rules and
Regulations Section of this Federal Register as a direct final rule.
For further supplementary information, the detailed rationale for the
proposal and the regulatory revisions, see the direct final rule.
    We are taking direct final action because we view the amendments as
noncontroversial and anticipate no adverse comments. We have explained
our reasons for the amendments in the preamble to the direct final
rule. If we receive no material adverse comment, we will take no
further action on the proposed rule. If we receive material adverse
comment or a public hearing is requested, we will withdraw only the
amendments, sections, or paragraphs of the direct final rule on which
we received material adverse comment. We will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register indicating which will become
effective and which are being withdrawn. If part or all of the direct
final rule in the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal
Register is withdrawn, all comments pertaining to the amendments will
be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We
will not institute a second comment period on this proposed rule. Any
parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    For a complete discussion of all of the administrative requirements
applicable to this action, see the direct final rule in the Rules and
Regulations section of this Federal Register.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impact of today's proposed rule on
small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business
according to Small Business Administration size standards for companies
mainly identified by NAICS codes 336611 (shipbuilding and repairing)
with 1,000 or fewer employees; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction
that is a government or a city, county, town, school district or
special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis in connection with the proposed rule. This action
broadens the scope of the category through revision of the definition
of ship which may impact facilities currently complying with subpart
II, none of which are small entities. The direct final rule will not
impose any new requirements on small entities. We continue to be
interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small
entities and welcome

comments on issues related to such impacts.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 22, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E6-22428 Filed 12-28-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 217 (Friday, November 8, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 60334]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24383]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2019-0776]

Special Local Regulations; San Diego Parade of Lights, San Diego,
CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the San Diego Parade of Lights
special local regulations on the waters of San Diego Bay, California on
December 8, 2019 and December 15, 2019. These special local regulations
are necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, crew,
spectators, sponsor vessels, and general users of the waterway. During
the enforcement period, persons and vessels are prohibited from
anchoring, blocking, loitering, or impeding within this regulated area
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated
representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 100.1101 will be enforced from 5 p.m.
through 8:30 p.m. on December 8, 2019 and December 15, 2019 for Item 5
in Table 1 of Sec.  100.1101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
publication of enforcement, call or email Lieutenant Briana Biagas,
Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA; telephone
(619) 278-7656, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the special
local regulations in 33 CFR 100.1101 for the San Diego Parade of Lights
in San Diego Bay, CA in Table 1, Item 5 of that section from 5 p.m.
until 8:30 p.m. on December 8, 2019 and December 15, 2019. This
enforcement action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on
navigable waterways during the event. The Coast Guard's regulation for
recurring marine events in the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone
identifies the regulated entities and area for this event. During the
enforcement periods and under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.1101,
persons and vessels are prohibited from anchoring, blocking, loitering,
or impeding within this regulated area, unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. The Coast Guard
may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement
agencies in enforcing this regulation.
    In addition to this document in the Federal Register, the Coast
Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of
this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners, marine
information broadcasts, and local advertising by the event sponsor.
    If the Captain of the Port Sector San Diego or his designated
representative determines that the regulated area need not be enforced
for the full duration stated on this document, he or she may use a
Broadcast Notice to Mariners or other communications coordinated with
the event sponsor to grant general permission to enter the regulated
area.

    Dated: November 4, 2019.
D.P. Montoro,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2019-24383 Filed 11-7-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: August 15, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 157)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 45643-45649]
[DOCID:fr15au07-14]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-1026; FRL-8141-8]

Pyrasulfotole; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of
pyrasulfotole in or on small cereal grains, including barley, oats,
rye, triticale, and wheat; as well as livestock commodities. Bayer
CropScience requested this tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective August 15, 2007. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before October 15, 2007,
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: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-1026. To access the
electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced

Search,'' then ``Docket Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where
indicated and select the ``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on
the regulations.gov web site to view the docket index or access
available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the
docket index available in regulations.gov. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or,

if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in
Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive,
Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joanne I. Miller, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those
engaged in the following activities:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111), e.g., agricultural
workers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; farmers.
     Animal production (NAICS code 112), e.g., cattle ranchers
and farmers, dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers.
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311), e.g., agricultural
workers; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers;
ranchers; pesticide applicators.
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532), e.g.,
agricultural workers; commercial applicators; farmers; greenhouse,
nursery, and floriculture workers; residential users.
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to
provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by
this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in
determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document?

    In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this Federal
Register document through the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, you may access this Federal Register document

electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access a

frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at
40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR
site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, 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-2006-1026 in the
subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be
in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk as
required by 40 CFR part 178 on or before October 15, 2007.
    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 that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit this copy, identified by docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-1026, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Petition for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of February 7, 2007 (72 FR 5706) (FRL-8111-
8), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
6F7059) by Bayer CropScience, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27709. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.631 be amended
by establishing a tolerance for residues of the herbicide pyrasulfotole
(5-hydroxy-1,3-dimethyl-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)[2-(methylsulfonyl)-4-
(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]methanone, and its metabolite, 5-hydroxy-3-
methyl-1H-pyrazol-4-yl) [2-methylsulfornyl)-4-
(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]methanone, in or on barley, oat, rye,
triticale, wheat, grain at 0.07 parts per million (ppm), barley, oat,
rye, wheat, straw and oat, rye, wheat, forage at 0.25 ppm, barley, oat,
wheat, hay at 0.8 ppm, wheat, aspirated grain fractions at 1.4 ppm. In
addition, Bayer CropScience has requested permanent tolerances for
pyrsulfotole per se for cattle, goat, hog, horse, sheep, meat and fat
at 0.01 ppm, cattle, goat, hog, horse, sheep, meat byproducts at 0.3
ppm, and milk at 0.005 ppm. That notice referenced a summary of the
petition prepared by Bayer CropScience, the registrant, which is
available to the public in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov.

There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
modified the tolerance levels as follows: aspirated grain fractions at
0.40 ppm, barley, grain at 0.02 ppm, barley, hay at 0.30 ppm, barley,
straw at 0.20 ppm, cattle, fat at 0.02 ppm, cattle, liver at 0.35 ppm,
cattle, meat at 0.02 ppm, cattle, meat byproducts, except liver at 0.06
ppm, eggs at 0.02 ppm, goat, fat at 0.02 ppm, goat meat at 0.02 ppm,
goat, meat byproducts, except liver at 0.06 ppm, hog, fat at 0.02 ppm,
hog, meat at 0.02 ppm, hog, meat byproducts at 0.02 ppm, horse, fat at
0.02 ppm, horse, liver at 0.35 ppm, horse, meat at 0.02 ppm, horse,
meat byproducts, except liver at 0.06 ppm, milk at 0.01 ppm, oat,
forage at 0.10 ppm, oat, grain at 0.08 ppm, oat, hay at 0.50 ppm, oat,
straw at 0.20 ppm, poultry, fat at 0.02 ppm, poultry, meat at 0.02 ppm,
poultry, meat byproducts at 0.02 ppm, rye, forage at 0.20 ppm, rye,
grain at 0.02 ppm, rye, straw at 0.20 ppm, sheep, fat at 0.02 ppm,
sheep, liver at 0.35 ppm, sheep, meat at 0.02 ppm, sheep, meat
byproducts, except liver at 0.06 ppm, wheat, forage at 0.20 ppm, wheat,
grain at 0.02 ppm, wheat, hay at 0.80 ppm, and wheat, straw at 0.20
ppm.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the 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 the 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 the 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....'' These provisions were added to the FFDCA by the Food
Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for tolerance
for residues of pyrasulfotole and pyrasulfotole-desmethyl on aspirated
grain fractions at 0.40 ppm, barley, grain at 0.02 ppm, barley, hay at
0.30 ppm, barley, straw at 0.20 ppm, cattle, fat at 0.02 ppm, cattle,
liver at 0.35 ppm, cattle, meat at 0.02 ppm, cattle, meat byproducts,
except liver at 0.06 ppm, eggs at 0.02 ppm, goat, fat at 0.02 ppm, goat
meat at 0.02 ppm, goat, meat byproducts, except liver at 0.06 ppm, hog,
fat at 0.02 ppm, hog, meat at 0.02 ppm, hog, meat byproducts at 0.02
ppm, horse, fat at 0.02 ppm, horse, liver at 0.35 ppm, horse, meat at
0.02 ppm, horse, meat byproducts, except liver at 0.06 ppm, milk at
0.01 ppm, oat, forage at 0.10 ppm, oat, grain at 0.08 ppm, oat, hay at
0.50 ppm, oat, straw at 0.20 ppm, poultry, fat at 0.02 ppm, poultry,
meat at 0.02 ppm, poultry, meat byproducts at 0.02 ppm, rye, forage at
0.20 ppm, rye, grain at 0.02 ppm, rye, straw at 0.20 ppm, sheep, fat at
0.02 ppm, sheep, liver at 0.35 ppm, sheep, meat at 0.02 ppm, sheep,
meat byproducts, except liver at 0.06 ppm, wheat, forage at 0.20 ppm,
wheat, grain at 0.02 ppm, wheat, hay at 0.80 ppm, and wheat, straw at
0.20 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with
establishing the tolerance follows.
    For pyrasulfotole, aggregate exposure risk assessments were
performed for the following scenarios: Acute aggregate exposure (food
and drinking water), and chronic aggregate exposure (food and drinking
water). Short- and intermediate-term assessments, which are used to
evaluate aggregate dietary and residential exposures, were not
performed because there are no registered or proposed residential non-
food uses. Although pyrasulfotole is classified as ``Suggestive
Evidence of Carcinogenicity,'' EPA determined that separate
quantifications of cancer risks is not required noting that the
progression of non-neoplastic related lesions in both the rats and mice
was biologically plausible by non-genotoxic

modes of action for both the corneal tumors and the bladder tumors.
Therefore, the chronic RfD will be protective of cancer and non-cancer
effects.
    Pyrasulfotole belongs to a class of herbicides that inhibit the
liver enzyme 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD), which is
involved in the catabolism (metabolic breakdown) of tyrosine (an amino
acid derived from proteins in the diet). Inhibition of HPPD can result
in elevated tyrosine levels in the blood, a condition called
tyrosinemia. HPPD-inhibiting herbicides have been found to cause a
number of toxicities in laboratory animal studies including ocular,
developmental, liver, and kidney effects. Of these toxicities, it is
the ocular effect (corneal opacity) that is highly correlated with the
elevated blood tyrosine levels. In fact, rats dosed with tyrosine alone
show ocular opacities similar to those seen with HPPD inhibitors.
Although the other toxicities may be associated with chemically-induced
tyrosinemia, other mechanisms may also be involved.
    There are marked differences among species in the ocular toxicity
associated with inhibition of HPPD. Ocular effects following treatment
with HPPD inhibitor herbicides are seen in the rat but not in the
mouse. Monkeys also seem to be recalcitrant to the ocular toxicity
induced by HPPD inhibition. The explanation of this species-specific
response in ocular opacity is related to the species differences in the
clearance of tyrosine. A metabolic pathway exists to remove tyrosine
from the blood that involves a liver enzyme called tyrosine
aminotransferase (TAT). In contrast to rats where ocular toxicity is
observed following exposure to HPPD-inhibiting herbicides, mice and
human are unlikely to achieve the levels of plasma tyrosine necessary
to produce ocular opacities because the activity of TAT in these
species is much greater compared to rats. Thus, humans and mice have a
highly effective metabolic process for handling excess tyrosine.
    HPPD inhibitors (e.g., Nitisinone) are used as an effective
therapeutic agent to treat patients suffering from rare genetic
diseases of tyrosine catabolism. Treatment starts in childhood but is
often sustained throughout patient's lifetime. The human experience
indicates that a therapeutic dose (1 mg/kg/day dose) of Nitisinone has
an excellent safety record in infants, children, and adults and that
serious adverse health outcomes have not been observed in a population
followed for approximately a decade. Rarely, ocular effects are seen in
patients with high plasma tyrosine levels; however these effects are
transient and can be readily reversed upon adherence to a restricted
protein diet. This indicates that an HPPD inhibitor in it of itself
cannot easily overwhelm the tyrosine-clearance mechanism in humans.
    Therefore, exposure to environmental residues of HPPD-inhibiting
herbicides are unlikely to result in the high blood levels of tyrosine
and ocular toxicity in humans due to an efficient metabolic process to
handle excess tyrosine. Nonetheless, because EPA has not yet developed
an alternate risk assessment endpoint, model, or cross-species
extrapolation method for pyrasulfotole, EPA has assessed chronic risk
from exposure to pyrasulfotole based on its ocular effects in rats. Due
to the limited relevance to humans of this endpoint, this approach to
assessing chronic risk for pyrasulfotole must be regarded as worst
case. In the future, assessment of HPPD-inhibiting herbicides will
consider more appropriate models and cross species extrapolation
methods.

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. Specific information on the studies received and the nature
of the adverse effects caused by pyrasulfotole 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.
 The referenced document, entitled ``Pyrasulfotole:

Human Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Uses on Small Cereal
Grains,'' is available in the docket established by this action, (EPA-
HQ-OPP-2006-1026).

B. Toxicological Endpoints

    For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological level of concern (LOC) is derived
from the highest dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the
NOAEL) in the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use in
risk assessment. However, if a NOAEL cannot be determined, the lowest
dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL) is
sometimes used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors (UF) are
used in conjunction with the LOC to take into account uncertainties
inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and
in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population
as well as other unknowns. Safety is assessed for acute and chronic
risks by comparing aggregate exposure to the pesticide to the acute
population adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic population adjusted dose
(cPAD). The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by dividing the LOC by all
applicable uncertainty/safety factors. Short-, intermediate, and long-
term risks are evaluated by comparing aggregate exposure to the LOC to
ensure that the margin of exposure (MOE) called for by the product of
all applicable uncertainty/safety factors is not exceeded.
    For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of
exposure will lead to some degree of risk and estimates risk in terms
of the probability of occurrence of additional adverse cases.
Generally, cancer risks are considered non-threshold. For more
information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization
and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/1997/November/Day-26/p30948.htm
.

    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for pyrasulfotole used for
human risk assessment is shown in Table 1. of this unit.

    Table 1.--Summary of Toxicological Dose and Endpoints for Pyrasulfotole for Use in Human Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Dose Used in Risk     Uncertainty/FQPA Safety  Study and Toxicological
          Exposure/Scenario                   Assessment               Factors\1\                Effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute Dietary (All populations)        NOAEL = 3.8 mg/kg/day    UFA = 10X                Developmental
                                                                UFH = 10X..............   neurotoxicity (rat;
                                                                UFFQPA = 1X............   dietary) offspring
                                                                                LOAEL = 37 mg/kg/day
                                                                                based on delayed
                                                                                preputial separation
                                                                                (males), decreased
                                                                                cerebrum length (PND
                                                                                21 females), and
                                                                                decreased cerebellum
                                                                                height (PND 21 males)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic Dietary (All populations)      NOAEL= 1.0 mg/kg/day     UFA = 10X                Combined chronic
                                                                UFH = 10X..............   toxicity/
                                                                UFFQPA = 1X............   carcinogenicity (rat;
                                                                                dietary)
                                                                                LOAEL = 10/14 mg/kg/day
                                                                                (M/F) based on corneal
                                                                                opacity,
                                                                                neovascularization of
                                                                                the cornea,
                                                                                inflammation of the
                                                                                cornea, regenerative
                                                                                corneal hyperplasia,
                                                                                corneal atrophy, and /
                                                                                or retinal atrophy
                                                                                (both sexes), and
                                                                                hepatocellar
                                                                                hypertrophy along with
                                                                                increased serum
                                                                                cholesterol (males)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidental Oral Short-and              NOAEL= 2.5 mg/kg/day     UFA = 10X                Reproduction and
 Intermediate-Term (1-30 days and 1-6                           UFH = 10X..............   fertility effects
 months)                                                        UFFQPA = 1X............   (rat; dietary)
                                                                                offspring
                                                                                LOAEL = 26.3/32.6 mg/kg
                                                                                bw/day (M/F) based on
                                                                                corneal opacity and/or
                                                                                corneal
                                                                                neovascularization (F1
                                                                                and F2 generations)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dermal Short- and Intermediate-Term    NOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day     UFA = 10X                28-day dermal toxicity
 (1-30 days and 1-6 months)                                     UFH = 10X..............   (rat)
                                                                                LOAEL = 100 mg/kg bw/
                                                                                day (M/F) based on
                                                                                focal degeneration of
                                                                                pancreas (both sexes)
                                                                                and alteration of
                                                                                thyroid colloid
                                                                                (males)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dermal Long-Term (> 6 months)          NOAEL= 1.0 mg/kg/day     UFA = 10X                Combined chronic
                                       Estimated dermal         UFH = 10X..............   toxicity/
                                        absorption factor =                               carcinogenicity (rat;
                                        2.5%.                                             dietary)
                                                                                LOAEL = 10/14 mg/kg/day
                                                                                (M/F) based on corneal
                                                                                opacity,
                                                                                neovascularization of
                                                                                the cornea,
                                                                                inflammation of the
                                                                                cornea, regenerative
                                                                                corneal hyperplasia,
                                                                                corneal atrophy, and/
                                                                                or retinal atrophy
                                                                                (both sexes), and
                                                                                hepatocellular
                                                                                hypertrophy along with
                                                                                increased serum
                                                                                cholesterol (males)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inhalation (All durations)             NOAEL = 1.0 mg/kg/day    UFA = 10X                Combined chronic
                                       100% inhalation asumed.  UFH = 10X..............   toxicity/
                                                                                carcinogenicity (rat;
                                                                                dietary)
                                                                                LOAEL = 10/14 mg/kg/day
                                                                                (M/F) based on corneal
                                                                                opacity,
                                                                                neovascularization of
                                                                                the cornea,
                                                                                inflammation of the
                                                                                cornea, regenerative
                                                                                corneal hyperplasia,
                                                                                corneal atrophy, and/
                                                                                or retinal atrophy
                                                                                (both sexes), and
                                                                                hepatocellular
                                                                                hypertrophy along with
                                                                                increased serum
                                                                                cholesterol (males)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation)       Classification: ``Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenic Potential'' based
                                              on increased incidences of corneal tumors in male rats (oral
                                          carcinogenicity study) and urinary bladder tumors in male and female
                                                            mice (oral carcinogenicity study)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\UF = Uncertainty factor, UFA = Extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies), UFH = Potential variation
  in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies), and UFFQPA = Food Quality Protection Act
  (FQPA) safety factor.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to pyrasulfotole, EPA assessed dietary exposures from
pyrasulfotole 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 one-day or single exposure. In estimating acute
dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide
Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue
levels in food, EPA relied upon tolerance-level residues and assuming
100% crop treated information for all commodities.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996
and 1998 CSFII. As to residue levels in food, EPA relied upon
tolerance-level residues and assuming 100% crop treated information for
all commodities.
    iii. Cancer. Pyrasulfotole has been classified by the EPA as having
``Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenic Potential,'' based on increased
incidences of corneal tumors in male rats at the highest dose tested
(2,500 ppm) in the chronic toxicity/

carcinogenicity study in rat and urinary bladder transitional cell
tumors in male and female mice at the highest dose tested (4,000 ppm)
in the mouse carcinogenicity study. These tumors were observed at doses
that were considered excessive due to increased mortality caused by
urinary bladder stones. EPA noted that the progression of non-
neoplastic related lesions in both the rats and mice was biologically
plausible by non-genotoxic modes of action for both the corneal tumors
and the bladder tumors. Therefore, the chronic RfD of 0.01 mg/kg/day,
based on the rat chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study (NOAEL= 25 ppm
(1 mg/kg/day) and LOAEL of 250 ppm (10 mg/kg/day)) would be protective
of both non-cancer and potential cancer precursor effects.
Quantifications of separate cancer risk was not required.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency lacks
sufficient monitoring data to complete a comprehensive dietary exposure
analysis and risk assessment for pyrasulfotole in drinking water.
Because the Agency does not have comprehensive monitoring data,
drinking water concentration estimates are made by reliance on
simulation or modeling taking into account data on the environmental
fate characteristics of pyrasulfotole. Further information regarding
EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.

    Based on the FIRST and SCI-GROW models, the estimated drinking
water environmental concentrations (EDWCs) of pyrasulfotole for acute
exposures are estimated to be 4.0 parts per billion (ppb) for surface
water and 1.4 ppb for ground water. The EECs for chronic exposures are
estimated to be 2.8 ppb for surface water and 1.4 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 4.0 ppb was used to access
the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 2.8 ppb was used to access
the contribution to drinking water.
    The pyrasulfotole risk assessment team determined that the residue
of concern in drinking water for risk assessment purposes is parent
only. Pyrasulfotole-benzoic acid was identified as the only
environmental degradate in the soil metabolism and terrestrial field
dissipation studies. Based on available toxicology studies on
pyrasulfotole-benzoic acid, EPA determined that it is not of
toxicological concern, and thus, should not be included in the drinking
water assessment for pyrasulfotole.
    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). Pyrasulfotole is not
proposed or registered for use on any sites that would result in
residential exposure.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of the 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.''
    Pyrasulfotole belongs to a class of herbicides (including
mesotrione, isoxaflutole, and topramezone) that inhibit the liver
enzyme 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD). EPA has concluded
that the ocular effects caused by these herbicides has limited
relevance to humans. In the future, assessments of HPPD-inhibiting
herbicides will consider more appropriate models and cross species
extrapolation methods.
    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://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative
.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408 of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply
an additional (10X) tenfold 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 data base 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. In applying
this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X when
reliable data do not support the choice of a different factor, or, if
reliable data are available, EPA uses a different additional FQPA
safety factor value based on the use of traditional uncertainty/safety
factors and/or special FQPA safety factors, as appropriate.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. Increased quantitative
susceptibility of offspring was observed in the rabbit developmental
toxicity study, since offspring toxicity (skeletal anomalies/
variations) was observed at a lower dose than maternal toxicity
(decreased body weight gain, food consumption). No evidence of
quantitative susceptibility following in utero and/or postnatal
exposure was observed in the prenatal developmental toxicity study in
rats, the developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) study in rats, or in the 2-
generation rat reproductive toxicity study. Offspring toxicity
(skeletal variations; decreased body weight (males)) was observed at
the same dose as maternal toxicity (clinical signs, decreased body
weight, enlarged placenta) in the prenatal developmental toxicity study
in rats. Offspring toxicity (e.g., ocular toxicity, effects on
learning/memory, effects on brain morphometry) was also observed at the
same dose as maternal toxicity (ocular opacity) in the DNT study. Last,
offspring toxicity (ocular toxicity) was observed at the same as or
higher doses than parental toxicity (thyroid effects) in the 2-
generation rat reproductive toxicity study.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show that it
would be safe for infants and children to reduce the FQPA safety factor
to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings:
    i. The toxicology database is complete.
    ii. There are no residual uncertainties concerning pre- and
postnatal toxicity. Clear NOAELs were established for all exposure
scenarios and these are considered protective of the offspring
susceptibility observed in the rabbit developmental toxicity study. The
concern for increased susceptibility seen in rabbit developmental
toxicity study is low because a) there is well established
developmental NOAEL in the rabbit developmental toxicity study in
rabbits protecting fetuses from skeletal anomalies/variations, b) the
increased succeptibility was not seen in rat developmental toxicity
study, developmental neurotoxicity study in rats and two generation
reproduction study in rats, c) the NOAEL of the study chosen for the
chronic RfD is 10x lower than the rabbit developmental toxicity study
NOAEL (10 mg/kg/day).
    iii. There are no registered or proposed uses of pyrasulfotole
which would result in residential exposure.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100% crop treated and tolerance-level residues for

all proposed commodities. By using this screening-level assessment, the
acute and chronic exposures/risks will not be underestimated. The
dietary drinking water assessment (unrefined estimates) utilizes values
generated by model and associated modeling parameters which are
designed to provide conservative, health protective, high-end estimates
of water concentrations.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    Safety is assessed for acute and chronic risks by comparing
aggregate exposure to the pesticide to the acute population adjusted
dose (aPAD) and chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD). The aPAD and
cPAD are calculated by dividing the LOC by all applicable uncertainty/
safety factors. For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the probability
of additional cancer cases given aggregate exposure. Short-,
intermediate, and long-term risks are evaluated by comparing aggregate
exposure to the LOC to ensure that the margin of exposure (MOE) called
for by the product of all applicable uncertainty/safety factors is not
exceeded.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to pyrasulfotole and pyrasulfotole-desmethyl will occupy 2% of the aPAD
for the general U.S. population and at 4% of the aPAD for children 1-2
years old, the most highly exposed population subgroup.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to
pyrasulfotole and pyrasulfotole-desmethyl from food and water will
utilize 2% of the cPAD for the general U.S. population and at 7% of the
cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the most highly exposed population
subgroup.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background exposure level). Pyrasulfotole is not
registered for use on any sites that would result in residential
exposure. Therefore, the aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from
food and water.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Pyrasulfotole
is not registered for use on any sites that would result in residential
exposure. Therefore, the aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from
food and water, which do not exceed the Agency's level of concern.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Pyrasulfotole has
been classified by EPA as having ``Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenic
Potential,'' based on increased incidences of corneal tumors in male
rats at the highest dose tested (2,500 ppm) in the chronic toxicity/
carcinogenicity study in rat and urinary bladder transitional cell
tumors in male and female mice at the highest dose tested (4,000 ppm)
in the mouse carcinogenicity study. The chronic RfD of 0.01 mg/kg/day,
based on the rat chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study (NOAEL = 25 ppm
(1 mg/kg/day) and LOAEL of 250 ppm (10 mg/kg/day)) would be protective
of both non-cancer and cancer effects.
    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 pyrasulfotole and pyrasulfotole-desmethyl residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology high-performance liquid
chromatography (HPLC)/mass spectrometry (MS)/MS method (Method AI-004-
A05-01) 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>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

B. International Residue Limits

    There are no established Mexican, Canadian, or Codex MRLs for the
proposed uses. Pyrasulfotole was evaluated as part of a trilateral
joint review with Canada and Australia. All EPA-recommended tolerances
are the same as those being established in Canada and Australia.
Therefore, harmonization is not an issue at this time.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, the tolerance is established for residues of
pyrasulfotole and pyrasulfotole-desmethyl, (5-hydroxy-1,3-dimethyl-1H-
pyrazol-4-yl)[2-(methylsulfonyl)-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]methanone,
and its metabolite, 5-hydroxy-3-methyl-1H-pyrazol-4-yl) [2-
methylsulfornyl)-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]methanone, in or on
aspirated grain fractions at 0.40 ppm, barley, grain at 0.02 ppm,
barley, hay at 0.30 ppm, barley, straw at 0.20 ppm, cattle, fat at 0.02
ppm, cattle, liver at 0.35 ppm, cattle, meat at 0.02 ppm, cattle, meat
byproducts, except liver at 0.06 ppm, eggs at 0.02 ppm, goat, fat at
0.02 ppm, goat meat at 0.02 ppm, goat, meat byproducts, except liver at
0.06 ppm, hog, fat at 0.02 ppm, hog, meat at 0.02 ppm, hog, meat
byproducts at 0.02 ppm, horse, fat at 0.02 ppm, horse, liver at 0.35
ppm, horse, meat at 0.02 ppm, horse, meat byproducts, except liver at
0.06 ppm, milk at 0.01 ppm, oat, forage at 0.10 ppm, oat, grain at 0.08
ppm, oat, hay at 0.50 ppm, oat, straw at 0.20 ppm, poultry, fat at 0.02
ppm, poultry, meat at 0.02 ppm, poultry, meat byproducts at 0.02 ppm,
rye, forage at 0.20 ppm, rye, grain at 0.02 ppm, rye, straw at 0.20
ppm, sheep, fat at 0.02 ppm, sheep, liver at 0.35 ppm, sheep, meat at
0.02 ppm, sheep, meat byproducts, except liver at 0.06 ppm, wheat,
forage at 0.20 ppm, wheat, grain at 0.02 ppm, wheat, hay at 0.80 ppm,
and wheat, straw at 0.20 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of
FFDCA 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 rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections
subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any special considerations
under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.

    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action
alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities
established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section
408(n)(4) of FFDCA. 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 6,
2000) do not apply to this rule. In addition, This rule does not impose
any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law
104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the Agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. 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 this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule 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: August 1, 2007.
Debra Edwards,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Section 180.631 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  180.631  Pyrasulfotole; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of the
herbicide pyrasulfotole and pyrasulfotole-desmethyl, (5-hydroxy-1,3-
dimethyl-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)[2-(methylsulfonyl)-4-
(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]methanone, and its metabolite, 5-hydroxy-3-
methyl-1H-pyrazol-4-yl) [2-methylsulfornyl)-4-
(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]methanone, in or on the following agricultural
commodities:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aspirated grain fractions..................................         0.40
Barley, grain..............................................         0.02
Barley, hay................................................         0.30
Barley, straw..............................................         0.20
Cattle, fat................................................         0.02
Cattle, liver..............................................         0.35
Cattle, meat...............................................         0.02
Cattle, meat byproducts, except liver......................         0.06
Eggs.......................................................         0.02
Goat, fat..................................................         0.02
Goat, liver................................................         0.35
Goat, meat.................................................         0.02
Goat, meat byproducts, except liver........................         0.06
Hog, fat...................................................         0.02
Hog, meat..................................................         0.02
Hog, meat byproducts.......................................         0.02
Horse, fat.................................................         0.02
Horse, liver...............................................         0.35
Horse, meat................................................         0.02
Horse, meat byproducts, except liver.......................         0.06
Milk.......................................................         0.01
Oat, forage................................................         0.10
Oat, grain.................................................         0.08
Oat, hay...................................................         0.50
Oat, straw.................................................         0.20
Poultry, fat...............................................         0.02
Poultry, meat..............................................         0.02
Poultry, meat byproducts...................................         0.02
Rye, forage................................................         0.20
Rye, grain.................................................         0.02
Rye, straw.................................................         0.20
Sheep, fat.................................................         0.02
Sheep, liver...............................................         0.35
Sheep, meat................................................         0.02
Sheep, meat byproducts, except liver.......................         0.06
Wheat, forage..............................................         0.20
Wheat, grain...............................................         0.02
Wheat, hay.................................................         0.80
Wheat, straw...............................................         0.20
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]
    (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. [Reserved]
    (d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. [Reserved]

[FR Doc. E7-15698 Filed 8-14-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S