[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 48 (Tuesday, March 12, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8820-8825]
[FR Doc No: 2019-04458]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0494; FRL-9985-06]

Methoxyfenozide; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
methoxyfenozide in or on imported tea. Dow Agrosciences, LLC requested
these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective March 12, 2019. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before May 13, 2019, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0494, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0494 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
May 13, 2019. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0494, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional
instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of November 27, 2017 (82 FR 56017) (FRL-
9968-55), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
7E8601) by Dow Agrosciences, LLC, 9330 Zionsville Road, Indianapolis,
IN 46268. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.544 be amended by
establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide
methoxyfenozide, in or on tea, dried at 20 parts per million (ppm) and
tea, instant at 20 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the
petition prepared by Dow Agrosciences, LLC, the registrant, which is
available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. Comments were
received on the notice of filing. EPA's response to these comments is
discussed in Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    Many of the available short-term or subchronic toxicity studies on
methoxyfenozide showed little or no toxicity. The main target organs
identified from the toxicity studies in the rat and dog were the liver,
thyroid, and red blood cells (RBCs). The most consistent findings
across species and studies were transiently decreased RBC parameters
and increased liver, thyroid, adrenal, and spleen weights. Increases in
thyroid and adrenal weights were observed in the rat chronic oral
study. Thyroid weights were also increased in the dog following chronic
exposure. However, no accompanying histopathology was observed.
    Acute and subchronic oral neurotoxicity studies in the rat did not
show evidence of potential neurotoxicity. In the acute study, decreased
hindlimb grip strength on Day 0 was reported in males. This finding was
only observed at the limit dose in males and was not observed in the
subchronic neurotoxicity study and was therefore not considered
evidence of neurotoxicity. No clinical signs of neurotoxicity or
neurohistopathology were observed in other guideline studies.
    No maternal or developmental effects were observed in either the
rat or rabbit oral developmental toxicity studies. In the rat 2-
generation reproductive toxicity study, parental effects were limited
to increased liver weight and microscopic periportal hypertrophy. No
offspring or reproductive toxicity was observed. In a 28-day dietary
immunotoxicity study in the rat, no immunotoxicity was observed, and
the only observed effect was increased liver weight.
    There was no evidence of carcinogenicity in the rat dietary 24-
month chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study or the mouse dietary 18-
month carcinogenicity study. No mutagenic or clastogenic potential was
observed in the battery of genotoxicity studies on methoxyfenozide.
Based on these findings, methoxyfenozide is classified as ``not likely
to be carcinogenic to humans.''
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by methoxyfenozide as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document, ``Methoxyfenozide. Human Health Draft
Risk Assessment for Registration Review and New Use Risk Assessment to
Support the Registration of Proposed Use on Chives, and Crop Group
Expansions for Stone Fruit and Tree Nuts'' at pp. 42-47 in docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0591.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

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

     Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Methoxyfenozide for Use in Human Health Risk
                                                   Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Point of departure
        Exposure/scenario            and uncertainty/     RfD, PAD, LOC for     Study and toxicological effects
                                      safety factors       risk assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (All populations                  No hazard was identified for a single oral exposure.
 including infants and children
 and females 13-49 years of age).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary (All populations)  NOAEL = 10.2 mg/kg/   Chronic RfD = 0.10   Co-critical studies:
                                    day.                  mg/kg/day.          Combined oral chronic toxicity/
                                   UFA = 10x...........  cPAD = 0.10 mg/kg/    carcinogenicity-rat
                                   UFH = 10x...........   day.                LOAEL = 411/491 mg/kg/day [M/F],
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........                        based on hematological changes
                                                                               (decreased RBC parameters),
                                                                               periportal liver hypertrophy,
                                                                               thyroid hypertrophy and altered
                                                                               colloid; possibly increased
                                                                               adrenal weight.
                                                                              Chronic oral toxicity-dog
                                                                              NOAEL = 9.8/12.6 mg/kg/day [M/F]
                                                                              LOAEL = 106.1/110.6 mg/kg/day,
                                                                               based on hematological changes
                                                                               (decreased RBC parameters, slight
                                                                               methemoglobinemia) and increased
                                                                               serum bilirubin.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidental oral short-term (1 to   NOAEL= 16.8 mg/kg/    Residential LOC for  Two-week oral range-finding study-
 30 days).                          day.                  MOE <=100.           dog
                                   UFA = 10x...........                       LOAEL = 90.8 mg/kg/day based on
                                   UFH = 10x...........                        hematological changes (decreased
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........                        RBC parameters, increased Heinz
                                                                               body count, reticulocyte counts,
                                                                               erythrocyte morphology and
                                                                               methemoglobinemia) and increased
                                                                               spleen weights.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dermal short-term (1 to 30 days)         No toxicity, i.e., no hazard, was identified for dermal exposure.
 or Intermediate-term (1 to 6
 months).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inhalation short-term (1 to 30     NOAEL= 16.8 mg/kg/    Residential LOC for  Two-week oral range-finding study-
 days) and Intermediate-term (1     day (Inhalation       MOE <=100.           dog
 to 6 months).                      toxicity considered                       LOAEL = 90.8 mg/kg/day based on
                                    equivalent to oral                         hematological changes (decreased
                                    toxicity.).                                RBC parameters, increased Heinz
                                   UFA = 10x...........                        body count, reticulocyte counts,
                                   UFH = 10x...........                        erythrocyte morphology and
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........                        methemoglobinemia) and increased
                                                                               spleen weights.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation)                     Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level
  of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-
  level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor.
  UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among
  members of the human population (intraspecies).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to methoxyfenozide, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing methoxyfenozide
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.544. EPA assessed dietary exposures from
methoxyfenozide in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. No such effects were
identified in the toxicological studies for methoxyfenozide; therefore,
a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the United States
Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). As to
residue levels in food, EPA used tolerance-level residues, 100 percent
crop treated (100%CT), and default processing factors for most
processed commodities that do not have individual tolerances; the only
exception being a processing factor for orange juice based on a
processing study.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that methoxyfenozide does not pose a cancer risk to humans.
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing
cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the
dietary assessment for methoxyfenozide. Tolerance level residues and/or
100% CT were assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for methoxyfenozide in drinking water. These simulation
models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/
transport characteristics of methoxyfenozide. Further information
regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure
assessment can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-
assessing-

pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.
    Based on the FQPA Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) for
surface water, along with the Screening Concentration In GROund Water
(SCI-GROW) model and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW)
models for groundwater, the estimated drinking water concentrations
(EDWCs) of methoxyfenozide for chronic exposures for non-cancer
assessments are estimated to be 7.57 ppb for surface water and 214 ppb
for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 214 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Methoxyfenozide is
currently registered for use on ornamentals in and around home gardens,
which could result in residential exposures. EPA assessed residential
exposure using the following assumptions: Residential handlers were
assessed for potential short-term inhalation exposures from mixing,
loading, and applying methoxyfenozide. A quantitative dermal assessment
for residential handlers was not conducted since there is no systemic
toxicity associated with dermal exposures to methoxyfenozide. Adult
post-application exposures were not quantitatively assessed since no
dermal hazard was identified for methoxyfenozide and inhalation
exposures are typically negligible in outdoor settings. Furthermore,
the inhalation exposure assessment performed for residential handlers
is representative of worse case inhalation exposures and is considered
protective for post-application inhalation exposure scenarios.
    Post-application oral exposure to children is not expected since
the extent to which young children engage in activities associated with
areas where treated ornamentals are grown (or utilize these areas for
prolonged periods of play) is low. Therefore, an incidental oral post-
application exposure assessment was not conducted. Further information
regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential
exposures may be found at https://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/framework-assessing-non-occupational-non-dietary.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found methoxyfenozide to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and methoxyfenozide does not appear
to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
methoxyfenozide does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is no evidence of
qualitative or quantitative susceptibility of the developing fetus or
offspring, based on the developmental and reproductive toxicity study
results for methoxyfenozide. No developmental toxicity was observed in
either the rat or rabbit developmental toxicity studies, and there was
no evidence of offspring or reproductive toxicity in the rat 2-
generation reproductive toxicity study.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for methoxyfenozide is complete.
    ii. There is no indication that methoxyfenozide is a neurotoxic
chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study
or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence that methoxyfenozide results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The chronic dietary food exposure assessment was performed
based on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to methoxyfenozide in drinking water. Based on the
discussion in Unit III.C.3, regarding residential use patterns, EPA
does not expect residential uses of methoxyfenozide to result in post-
application exposure of children or incidental oral exposures of
toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and
risks posed by methoxyfenozide.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
methoxyfenozide is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
methoxyfenozide from food and water will utilize 84% of the cPAD for
children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit

III.C.3., regarding residential use patterns, chronic residential
exposure to residues of methoxyfenozide result in risk estimates (MOEs
> 100) which are not of concern.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
Methoxyfenozide is currently registered for uses that could result in
short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it
is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water
with short-term residential exposures to methoxyfenozide.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water,
and residential exposures result in an aggregate MOE of 530. Because
EPA's level of concern for methoxyfenozide is a MOE of 100 or below,
this MOE is not of concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level). An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however,
methoxyfenozide is not registered for any use patterns that would
result in intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term
risk is assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus
chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term
residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been
assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as
protective as the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no
further assessment of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA
relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating
intermediate-term risk for methoxyfenozide.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, methoxyfenozide is not expected to pose a cancer risk to
humans.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to methoxyfenozide residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodologies, using high performance liquid
chromatography (HPLC), with either tandem mass spectrometric detection
(LC-MS/MS), or ultraviolet detection (HPLC-UV) or the multiresidue
QuEChERS method, combined with an HPLC-MS/MS, are available to enforce
the tolerance expression.
    The methods may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established a MRL for methoxyfenozide in or on
tea.

C. Response to Comments

    EPA received three comments, only one of which was specific to the
petition for methoxyfenozide tolerances. The specific comment opposed
``allowing such high residues'' but did not provide any information
relevant to the safety of the pesticide. The Agency recognizes that
some individuals believe that pesticides should be banned on
agricultural crops; however, the existing legal framework provided by
section 408 of the FFDCA states that tolerances may be set when persons
seeking such tolerances or exemptions have demonstrated that the
pesticide meets the safety standard imposed by that statute. The
comment appears to be directed at the underlying statute and not EPA's
implementation of it; the citizen has made no contention that EPA has
acted in violation of the statutory framework.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of
methoxyfenozide, in or on imported tea, dried at 20 ppm and tea,
instant at 20 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

VII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: March 4, 2019.
Michael Goodis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.544, add alphabetically the commodities ``Tea, dried''
and ``Tea, instant'' to the table in paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  180.544   Methoxyfenozide; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

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

                                * * * * *
Tea, dried \1\.............................................           20
Tea, instant \1\...........................................           20

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no U.S. registrations as of March 12, 2019 for use on tea.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-04458 Filed 3-11-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 37 (Wednesday, February 25, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10088-10089]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03902]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0096; FRL-9923-49-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Iron and Steel Foundry Area
Sources (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``NESHAP for Iron and Steel
Foundry Area Sources (40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZZ) (Renewal)'' (EPA
ICR No. 2267.04, OMB Control No. 2060-0605), to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq). This is a proposed
extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through February 28,
2015. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal
Register (79 FR 30117) on May 27, 2014, during a 60-day comment period.
This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A
fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated
burden and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor,
and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before March 27,
2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2014-0096, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The NESHAP for Iron and Steel Foundry Area Sources
applies to either owners or operators of any existing or new iron or
steel foundry that is an area source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP)
emissions. Research and development facilities are not covered by the
rule. Foundries covered by the rule would not be required to obtain a
Title V operating permit. Small iron and steel foundries are required
to comply with pollution prevention management practices for scrap
materials, the removal of mercury switches, and binder formulations.
Large iron and steel foundries are required to comply with the same
pollution prevention management practices as small foundries in
addition to emissions limitations for melting furnaces and foundry
operations. Owners or operators must submit an initial notification
report that the facility is subject to the rule, notification of
performance test, notification of compliance status (including results
of performance tests and other initial compliance demonstrations), and
the semiannual compliance report.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Iron and steel foundries.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart ZZZZZ).
    Estimated number of respondents: 427 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally and semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 7,893 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $772,735 (per year), which includes no
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: The increase in burden from the most-

recently approved ICR is due to several changes. This ICR adds burden
requirements to repeat certain performance tests (PM tests for large
foundries and opacity tests for all foundries), and corrects the
average number of respondents per year.

Courtney Kerwin,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2015-03902 Filed 2-24-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 90 (Thursday, May 9, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27274-27276]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11017]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69510; File No. SR-EDGX-2013-15]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Amendments to the EDGX Exchange, Inc. Fee Schedule

May 3, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on May 1, 2013, EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``EDGX'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which
items have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its fees and rebates applicable to
Members \3\ of the Exchange pursuant to EDGX Rule 15.1(a) and (c). All
of the changes described herein are applicable to EDGX Members. The
text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Internet Web site at www.directedge.com, at the Exchange's principal
office, and at the Public Reference Room of the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As defined in Exchange Rule 1.5(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    In securities priced at or above $1.00, the Exchange currently
provides a rebate of $0.0002 per share for Members' orders that yield
Flag BY, which routes to BATS BYX (``BYX'') and removes liquidity using
routing strategies ROUC, ROUE, or ROBY.\4\ The Exchange proposes to
amend its fee schedule to assess no charge (``free'') nor provide any
rebate for Members' orders that yield Flag BY. When Direct Edge ECN LLC
(d/b/a DE Route) (``DE Route''), the Exchange's affiliated routing
broker-dealer, routes to BYX, it is rebated $0.0005 per share for
adding an average daily volume of 50,000 shares per day on BYX.\5\
However, DE Route will pass through the non-tiered rate on BYX (no fee
nor rebate) to the Exchange and the Exchange, in turn, will pass
through no fee nor rebate to its Members.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As defined in Exchange Rule 11.9(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69317 (April 5,
2013), 78 FR 21651 (April 11, 2013) (SR-BYX-2013-012) (amending the
rebate BYX provides for removing liquidity from the BYX order book
for executions by members that add a daily average volume of at
least 50,000 shares from $0.0002 per share to $0.0005 per share).
    \6\ The Exchange notes that to the extent DE Route does or does
not achieve any volume tiered rebate on BYX, its rate for Flag BY
will not change. See BYX Fee Schedule, http://cdn.batstrading.com/resources/regulation/rule_book/BATS-Exchanges_Fee_Schedules.pdf
(offering no rebate to remove liquidity from BYX for executions by
its members that do not qualify for an enhanced rebate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In securities priced at $1.00 or above, the Exchange currently
assesses a charge of $0.0005 per share for Members' orders that yield
Flag RY, which routes to BYX and adds liquidity. The Exchange proposes
to amend its fee schedule to increase the rate it charges Members from
$0.0005 per share to $0.0007 per share for Flag RY. The proposed change
represents a pass through of the rate that DE Route is charged for
routing orders to BYX that do not qualify for additional volume tiered
discounts.\7\ DE Route passes through the charge to the Exchange and
the Exchange, in turn, passes through the charge to its Members. The
Exchange notes that the proposed change is in response to BYX's April
2013 fee filing with the Commission, wherein BYX increased the rate it
charges its customers, such as DE Route, from a charge of $0.0005 per
share to a charge of $0.0007 per share for orders

that are routed to BYX and add liquidity.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange notes that to the extent DE Route does or does
not achieve any volume tiered rebate on BYX, its rate for Flag RY
will not change.
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69317 (April 5,
2013), 78 FR 21651 (April 11, 2013) (SR-BYX-2013-012) (amending the
rate BYX charges for adding displayed liquidity to the BYX order
book for executions by members that do not qualify for a reduced
charge from $0.0005 per share to $0.0007 per share).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to implement these amendments to its fee
schedule on May 1, 2013.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\9\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\10\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its Members and other persons using its
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to decrease the rebate for
Flag BY and pass through no charge nor rebate for Members' orders that
yield Flag BY represents an equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its Members and other persons using its
facilities. First, the elimination of the rebate allows the Exchange to
have additional revenue to offset its administrative, operational, and
infrastructure costs. Second, the proposed rate (free) is competitive
as it is in line with the non-tiered rebates for adding liquidity to
BYX. When DE Route, the Exchange's affiliated routing broker-dealer,
routes to BYX, it is rebated $0.0005 per share provided it adds an
average daily volume of 50,000 shares per day on BYX. However, when DE
Route does not meet such volume threshold on BYX, it is assessed no fee
nor rebate (free). The proposed rate (free) \11\ represents a rate that
matches the non-tiered rate provided by BYX. The rate is also in line
with what BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'') rebates for routing to BYX.\12\
Lastly, the Exchange also believes that the proposed amendment is non-
discriminatory because it applies uniformly to all Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See BYX Fee Schedule, http://cdn.batstrading.com/resources/regulation/rule_book/BATS-Exchanges_Fee_Schedules.pdf (offering
no rebate to remove liquidity from BYX for executions by its members
that do not qualify for an enhanced rebate).
    \12\ For example, when orders using BZX's TRIM/TRIM2/TRIM3
routing strategies execute at BYX Exchange, a rebate of $0.0002 per
share is provided. This is a rate that is in between the tiered
rebate of $0.0005 per share and non-tiered rate (free) from BYX. See
BATS BZX Fee Schedule, http://cdn.batstrading.com/resources/regulation/rule_book/BATS-Exchanges_Fee_Schedules.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to pass through a charge of
$0.0007 for Members' orders that yield Flag RY represents an equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among Members of
the Exchange and other persons using its facilities because the
Exchange does not levy additional fees or offer additional rebates for
orders that it routes to BYX through DE Route. Prior to BYX's April
2013 fee filing, BYX charged DE Route a fee of $ 0.0005 per share for
orders yielding Flag RY, which DE Route passed through to the Exchange
and the Exchange passed through to its Members. In BYX's April 2013 fee
filing, BYX increased the rate it charges its customers, such as DE
Route, from $0.0005 per share to a charge of $0.0007 per share for
orders that are routed to BYX and add liquidity. Therefore, the
Exchange believes that the proposed change in Flag RY from a fee of
$0.0005 per share to a fee of $0.0007 per share is equitable and
reasonable because it accounts for the pricing changes on BYX. In
addition, the proposal allows the Exchange to continue to charge its
Members a pass-through rate for orders that are routed to BYX and add
liquidity using DE Route. The Exchange notes that routing through DE
Route is voluntary. Lastly, the Exchange also believes that the
proposed amendment is non-discriminatory because it applies uniformly
to all Members.

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

    These proposed rule changes do not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. The Exchange does not believe that any of these changes
represent a significant departure from previous pricing offered by the
Exchange or pricing offered by any of the Exchange's competitors.
Additionally, Members may opt to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if
they believe that alternatives offer them better value. Accordingly,
the Exchange believes that the proposed changes would not impair the
ability of Members or competing venues to maintain their competitive
standing in the financial markets.
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to pass through no charge
nor rebate for Members' orders that yield Flag BY would not burden
intermarket competition because the proposed rate is in line with BYX's
non-tiered rate and rates for routing to BYX from BZX. Additionally,
for customers that do not have sufficient volume to satisfy BYX's tier,
Flag BY offers customers an alternative means to route to BYX and
remove liquidity for the same price as entering orders on BYX directly.
The Exchange believes its proposal would not burden intramarket
competition because the proposed rate would apply uniformly to all
Members.
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to pass through a charge of
$0.0007 per share for Members' orders that yield Flag RY would increase
intermarket competition because it offers customers an alternative
means to route to BYX and add liquidity for the same price as entering
orders on BYX directly. The Exchange believes that its proposal would
not burden intramarket competition because the proposed rate would
apply uniformly to all Members.
    The Exchange believes that its proposal would increase competition
for routing services because the market for order execution is
competitive and the Exchange's proposal provides customers with another
alternative to route their orders. The Exchange notes that routing
through DE Route is voluntary.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested
parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \13\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \14\ thereunder. At
any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the
Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4 (f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
include File Number SR-EDGX-2013-15 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGX-2013-15. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGX-2013-15 and should be
submitted on or before May 30, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-11017 Filed 5-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 177 (Friday, September 12, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54696-54698]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21742]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RD14-4-000]

Proposed Agency Information Collection

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Comment Request.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission or FERC) is submitting the information
collection in Docket No. RD14-4-000 to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements. Any
interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should
address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below.
The Commission issued a Notice in the Federal Register (79 FR 36498, 6/
27/2014) requesting public comments. FERC received no comments in
response to that notice and has made this notation in its submission to
OMB.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due by October 14,
2014.

ADDRESSES: Comments filed with OMB, identified by the docket number,
should be sent via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission Desk Officer. The Desk Officer may also be
reached via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, identified by the Docket No. RD14-4-000, by
either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's Web site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
     Mail/Hand Delivery: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and fax at (202)
273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed information collection in
Docket No. RD14-4-000 relates to a proposed revision to the Interchange
Scheduling and Coordination (INT) group of Reliability Standards,
developed by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation
(NERC), and submitted to the Commission for

approval. The proposed revision modifies the Interchange Scheduling and
Coordination Reliability Standards in response to Commission directives
in Order No. 693,\1\ as well as some other clarifying revisions
relating to the ten revised definitions and four new definitions to be
added to the NERC Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards
(NERC Glossary). One of the revised definitions leads some entities
under Reliability Standard IRO-008-1 to perform additional paperwork
tasks. The existing information collection requirements contained in
the Interchange Scheduling and Coordination, and Interconnection
Reliability Operations and Coordination groups of Reliability Standards
are contained in FERC-725A (OMB Control Number 1902-0244). The
Commission is submitting the new information collection requirements to
OMB under new collections FERC-725W (for the new burden under INT-011-
1) and FERC-725Z (for the new burden under IRO-008-1).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System,
Order No. 693, 72 FR 16416 (Apr. 4, 2007), FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,242, at PP 819, 821, 843, 848, 872, 875 & 887, order on reh'g,
Order No. 693-A, 120 FERC ] 61,053 (2007).
    \2\ In the initial notice the Commission stated that the new
information collection would be under FERC-725A. However, to
increase administrative efficiency, the Commission will submit the
new requirements to OMB under FERC-725W and FERC-725Z.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 16, 2007, the Commission issued Order No. 693, approving
83 of the 107 Reliability Standards and associated definitions filed by
NERC, including the Interchange Scheduling and Coordination group of
Reliability Standards INT-001, INT-003, INT-004, INT-005, INT-006, INT-
007, INT-008, INT-009, and INT-010.\3\ In Order No. 693, the Commission
directed NERC to make changes through the Reliability Standards
development process to address certain directives. Specifically, the
Commission directed NERC to: (1) Develop a modification to INT-001-2
that includes a requirement that interchange information must be
submitted for all point-to-point transfers entirely within a balancing
authority area, including all grandfathered and ``non-Order No. 888''
transfers; and (2) to develop a modification to INT-006-1 through the
Reliability Standards development process to make the standard
applicable to reliability coordinators and transmission operators, and
require reliability coordinators and transmission operators to review
energy interchange transactions from the wide-area and local area
reliability viewpoints respectively and, where their review indicates a
potential detrimental reliability impact, communicate to the sink
balancing authorities necessary transaction modifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ]31,242 at PP 814-887.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its February 27, 2014 petition, NERC seeks Commission approval
of proposed revisions to the currently effective Reliability Standards,
as well as one new Reliability Standard to address the Commission's
directives. NERC asserts that, collectively, the five proposed
Reliability Standards, consisting of fourteen requirements, consolidate
the body of Interchange Scheduling and Coordination Reliability
Standards. In its petition, NERC also seeks approval for the retirement
of the currently effective Reliability Standards.\4\ NERC also seeks
approval of ten revised definitions and four new definitions to be
added to the NERC Glossary. NERC proposes to add the term
``Interchange'' to the existing definition for ``Operational Planning
Analysis.'' \5\ NERC States that ``by explicitly including
`Interchange' in the definition of `Operational Planning Analysis,' the
Reliability Coordinator must consider Interchange when performing the
analysis required in Reliability Standard IRO-008-1.'' \6\ Therefore,
the estimates for this information collection are based on the proposed
modifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ NERC Petition at 4.
    \5\ ``Interchange'' is defined in the NERC Glossary as ``Energy
transfers that cross Balancing Authority Boundaries.
    \6\ NERC Petition at 32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission estimates a modest increase in information
collection and reporting that would result from implementing NERC's
proposed revision to the NERC Glossary definition of ``Operational
Planning Analysis'' and new proposed Reliability Standard INT-011-1.
The estimate reflects NERC's proposal to include a requirement that
interchange information must be submitted for all point-to-point
transfers entirely within a balancing authority area, including all
grandfathered and ``non-Order No. 888'' transfers; and NERC's
alternative proposal to address the Commission's concern regarding INT-
006-1, as described above.
    NERC explains that ``by explicitly including `Interchange' in the
definition of `Operational Planning Analysis,' the Reliability
Coordinator must consider Interchange when performing the analysis
required in Reliability Standard IRO-008-1.'' \7\ These administrative
burdens fall into three categories of ``Submit Interchange
Information,'' ``Communicate Transaction Modification'' and ``Submit a
Request for Interchange'' as described in NERC's petition.\8\ NERC's
technical justification has shown that when the results of reliability
coordinator studies indicate the need for action, the reliability
coordinator is required to share the results per Requirement R3 of
Reliability Standard IRO-008-1. NERC explains that because energy
transfers within a balancing authority area that use point-to-point
transmission service can impact transmission congestion, proposed
Reliability Standard INT-011-1 ensures that these transfers are
communicated and accounted for in congestion management procedures. If
a transfer within a balancing authority area is submitted as a request
for interchange or otherwise accounted for in congestion management
procedures, it can be evaluated and processed comparable to a request
for interchange that crosses balancing authority areas.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ NERC Petition at 32.
    \8\ NERC Petition, Exhibit E at 1-2.
    \9\ NERC Petition at 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, we estimate an increase of one hour needed for
``Submit Interchange Information'' for balancing authorities,
``Communicate Transaction Modification'' for the reliability
coordinators, and ``Submit a Request for Interchange'' for the load-
serving entities, respectively. With respect to the proposed revisions
and retirement of the currently-effective Reliability Standards, the
Commission estimates no material change in information collection
because the consolidation of the standards does not impact the
paperwork burden.
    Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this proposed
collection is estimated as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The estimates for cost per response are derived using the
following formula: Average Burden Hours per Response * XX per Hour =
Average Cost per Response. The estimates for cost per hour (rounded
to the nearest dollar) are derived as follows:
     $60/hour, the average salary plus benefits per engineer
(from Bureau of Labor Statistics at http://bls.gov/oes/current/
naics3221000.htm)
     $82/hour, the salary plus benefits per manager (from
Bureau of Labor Statistics at http://bls.gov/oes/current/
naics3221000.htm)
     $32/hour, the salary plus benefits per information and
record clerks (from Bureau of Labor Statistics at http://bls.gov/
oes/current/naics3221000.htm).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        FERC-725A
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Annual  number                      Average      Total annual
                                                 Number and type of        of  responses   Total number   burden &  cost   burden hours      Cost per
                                                     respondents                per        of responses    per  response      & total       respondent
                                                                            respondent                         \10\         annual cost         ($)
                                            (1).........................             (2)     (1)*(2)=(3)             (4)     (3)*(4)=(5)         (5)/(1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submit Interchange Information............  114, Balancing authority                  52           5,928          1, $60          5,928,          $3,120
                                             (BA).                                                                              $355,680
Communicate Transaction Modification......  21, Reliability coordinator               12             252          1, $60    252, $15,120             720
                                             (RC).
Submit Request for Interchange, (INT-011-   502, Load-serving entity                  12           6,024          1, $60          6,024,             720
 1).                                         (LSE).                                                                             $361,440
Evidence Retention........................  637, BA/RC/LSE..............               1             637          1, $32    637, $20,384              32
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.................................  ............................  ..............          12,841  ..............         12,841,
                                                                                $752,624
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: September 5, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-21742 Filed 9-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 13 (Tuesday, January 21, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3286-3288]
[FR Doc No: 2020-00545]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0008; Airspace Docket No. 19-ASO-10]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of VOR Federal Airways V-7, V-52, and V-178 in
the Vicinity of Central City, KY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend three VHF Omnidirectional Range
(VOR) Federal airways, V-7, V-52, and V-178, in the vicinity of Central
City, KY. The modifications are necessary due to the planned
decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Central City, KY, VOR/
Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) navigation aid (NAVAID), which
provides navigation guidance for portions of the affected air traffic
service (ATS) routes. The Central City VOR is being decommissioned as
part of the FAA's VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) program.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 6, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone:
(800) 647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2020-0008; Airspace Docket No. 19-ASO-10 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov.

    FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11D at NARA, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it would modify the route structure as necessary to
preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National
Airspace System.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2020-0008; Airspace Docket No. 19-ASO-10) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to FAA Docket No. FAA-2020-0008; Airspace Docket No. 19-ASO-10.'' The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified comment
closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the comment
closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Operations Support Group, Central
Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Blvd.,
Fort Worth, TX, 76177.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective
September 15, 2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11D lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

Background

    The FAA is planning decommissioning activities for the VOR portion
of the Central City, KY, VORTAC in July, 2020. Central City VOR is one
of the candidate VORs identified for discontinuance by the FAA's VOR
MON program and listed in the final policy statement notice,
``Provision of Navigation Services for the Next Generation Air
Transportation System (NextGen) Transition to Performance-Based
Navigation (PBN) (Plan for Establishing a VOR Minimum Operational
Network),'' published in the Federal Register of July 26, 2016 (81 FR
48694), Docket No. FAA-2011-1082. Although the VOR portion of the
Central City, KY, VORTAC NAVAID is planned for decommissioning, the co-
located Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) is being retained. The ATS
routes affected by the planned Central City VOR decommissioning are VOR
Federal airways V-7, V-52, and V-178.
    With the planned decommissioning of the Central City VOR, the
remaining ground-based NAVAID coverage in the area is insufficient to
enable the continuity of the effected ATS routes. As such, proposed
modifications to the affected VOR Federal Airways would result in gaps
in the airways. To overcome the airway gaps, instrument flight rules
(IFR) traffic could use adjacent ATS route segments, including V-4, V-
5, V-5/513, V-11/47/305, V-512, and area navigation route T-325, to
circumnavigate the affected area. IFR traffic could also file point to
point through the affected area using the existing airway fixes that
will remain in place, as well as adjacent NAVAIDs, or receive air
traffic control (ATC) radar vectors through the area. Visual flight
rules pilots who elect to navigate via the airways through the affected
area could also take advantage of the adjacent VOR Federal airways or
ATC services listed previously.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying VOR Federal Airways V-7, V-
52, and V-178. The planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the
Central City, KY, VORTAC NAVAID has made this action necessary. The
proposed VOR Federal airway changes are outlined below.
    V-7: V-7 currently extends between the Dolphin, FL, VORTAC and the
Muscle Shoals, AL, VORTAC; and between the Central City, KY, VORTAC and
the Sawyer, MI, VOR/DME. The airspace below 2,000 feet mean sea level
(MSL) outside the United States is

excluded and the portion outside the United States has no upper limit.
The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment overlying the Central
City, KY, VORTAC between the Central City, KY, VORTAC and the Pocket
City, IN, VORTAC. Concurrent changes to other portions of the airway
are being proposed in separate NPRMs. The unaffected portions of the
existing airway would remain as charted.
    V-52: V-18 currently extends between the Des Moines, IA, VORTAC and
the Livingston, TN, VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove the airway
segment overlying the Central City, KY, VORTAC between the Pocket City,
IN, VORTAC and the Bowling Green, KY, VORTAC. The unaffected portions
of the existing airway would remain as charted.
    V-178: V-178 currently extends between the Hallsville, MO, VORTAC
and the Bluefield, WV, VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove the airway
segment overlying the Central City, KY, VORTAC between the Cunningham,
KY, VOR/DME and the New Hope, KY, VOR/DME. Concurrent changes to other
portions of the airway are being proposed in separate NPRMs. The
unaffected portions of the existing airway would remain as charted.
    All radials in the route descriptions below are unchanged and
stated in True degrees.
    VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order
7400.11D dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airways
listed in this document would be subsequently published in the Order.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule,
when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11D,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019 and
effective September 15, 2019, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal Airways.

* * * * *

V-7 [Amended]

    From Dolphin, FL; INT Dolphin 299[deg] and Lee County, FL,
120[deg] radials; Lee County; Lakeland, FL; Cross City, FL;
Seminole, FL; Wiregrass, AL; INT Wiregrass 333[deg] and Montgomery,
AL, 129[deg] radials; Montgomery; Vulcan, AL; to Muscle Shoals, AL.
From Pocket City, IN; INT Pocket City 016[deg] and Terre Haute, IN,
191[deg] radials; Terre Haute; Boiler, IN; Chicago Heights, IL; INT
Chicago Heights 358[deg] and Falls, WI, 170[deg] radials; Falls;
Green Bay, WI; Menominee, MI; to Sawyer, MI. The airspace below
2,000 feet MSL outside the United States is excluded. The portion
outside the United States has no upper limit.
* * * * *

V-52 [Amended]

    From Des Moines, IA; Ottumwa, IA; Quincy, IL; St. Louis, MO;
Troy, IL; INT Troy 099[deg] and Pocket City, IN, 311[deg] radials;
to Pocket City. From Bowling Green, KY; to Livingston, TN.
* * * * *

V-178 [Amended]

    From Hallsville, MO; INT Hallsville 183[deg] and Vichy, MO,
321[deg] radials; Vichy; Farmington, MO; Cape Girardeau, MO; to
Cunningham, KY. From New Hope, KY; Lexington, KY; to Bluefield, WV.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 7, 2020.
Rodger A. Dean Jr.,
Manager, Rules and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2020-00545 Filed 1-17-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P