[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 215 (Monday, November 8, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68557-68558]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28097]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1031; Airspace Docket No. 10-AGL-19]

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Martinsville, IN

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at
Martinsville, IN, to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach
Procedures (SIAP) for the Morgan Hospital Heliport. The FAA is taking
this action to enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight
Rules (IFR) operations at the heliport.

DATES: 0901 UTC. Comments must be received on or before December 23,
2010.

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 20590-0001. You
must identify the docket number FAA-2010-1031/Airspace Docket No. 10-
AGL-19, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments
through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the
public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any
final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office
(telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at
the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: 817-321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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 and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2010-1031/
Airspace Docket No. 10-AGL-19.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/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
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An
informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at
the office of the Central Service Center, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort
Worth, TX 76137.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking<PHONE_NUMBER>, to
request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR), part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward
from 700 feet above the surface for a new

COPTER RNAV (POINT-IN-SPACE) SIAP for the Morgan Hospital Heliport,
Martinsville, IN. Controlled airspace is needed for the safety and
management of IFR operations at the heliport.
    Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9U, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15, 2010, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in
the Order.
    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 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 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.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, 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
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 establish controlled airspace for the Morgan Hospital
Heliport, Martinsville, IN.

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order
7400.9U, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 18,
2010, and effective September 15, 2010, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

AGL IN E5 Martinsville, IN [New]

Martinsville, Morgan Hospital Heliport, IN
Point in Space
    (Lat. 39[deg]25[min]00[sec] N., long. 86[deg]24[min]49[sec] W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6-mile radius of the Morgan Hospital Heliport point in
space at lat. 39[deg]25[min]00[sec] N., long. 86[deg]24[min]49[sec]
W.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on October 26, 2010.
Anthony D. Roetzel,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2010-28097 Filed 11-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 132)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 39235]
[DOCID:fr09jy08-11]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0610]

Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Port Huron to
Mackinac Island Race

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulation for
the Port Huron to Mackinac Island Race, July 12, 2008, at 11 a.m. to
July 15, 2008, at 11:59 p.m. This action is necessary to safely control
vessel movements in the vicinity of the race and provide for the safety
of the general boating public and commercial shipping. During this
period, no person or vessel may enter the regulated area without the
permission of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.

DATES: This rule is effective from July 12, 2008, at 11 a.m. through
July 15, 2008, at 11:59 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Frank Jennings, Jr., Enforcement
Branch, Ninth Coast Guard District, 1240 East 9th Street, Cleveland, OH
at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the special
local regulation for the annual Port Huron to Mackinac Race July 12,
2008 at 11 a.m. through July 15, 2008 at 11:59 p.m. The Special Local
Regulations apply to the waters of the Black River, St. Clair River and
lower Lake Huron from:

Latitude......................................  Longitude

42[deg]58.8[min] N............................  082[deg]26[min] W, to
42[deg]58.4[min] N............................  082[deg]24.8[min] W,
                                                 thence

northward along the International Boundary to

43[deg]02.8[min] N............................  082[deg]23.8[min] W, to
43[deg]02.8[min] N............................  082[deg]26.8[min] W,
                                                 thence

southward along the U.S. shoreline to

42[deg]58.9[min] N............................  082[deg]26[min] W,
                                                 thence to

42[deg]58.8[min] N............................  082[deg] 26[min] W.

    In order to ensure the safety of spectators and participating
vessels, the special local regulation will be in effect for the
duration of the event. The Coast Guard will patrol the race area under
the direction of a designated Coast Guard Patrol Commander. Vessels
desiring to transit the regulated area may do so only with prior
approval of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander (PATCOM) and when so
directed by that officer. The PATCOM may be contacted on Channel 16
(156.8 MHZ) by the call sign ``Coast Guard Patrol Commander.'' Vessels
will be operated at a no wake speed to reduce the wake to a minimum,
and in a manner which will not endanger participants in the event or
any other craft. The rules contained in the above two sentences shall
not apply to participants in the event or vessels of the patrol
operating in the performance of their assigned duties.
    In the event this special local regulation affects shipping,
commercial vessels may request permission from the PATCOM to transit
the area of the event by hailing call sign ``Coast Guard Patrol
Commander'' on Channel 16 (156.8 MHZ).
    This notice is issued under the authority of 33 CFR Part 100.901
and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). If the District Commander, Captain of the Port or
PATCOM determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the
full duration stated in this notice, he or she may use a Broadcast
Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the regulated
area.

    Dated: June 24, 2008.
David R. Callahan,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, Ninth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. E8-15491 Filed 7-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 163 (Monday, August 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51293-51294]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20884]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2014-0022]

Technical Mapping Advisory Council

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Committee management; notice of Federal advisory committee
meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Technical
Mapping Advisory Council (TMAC) will meet via conference call on
September 9, 2015. The meeting will be open to the public.

DATES: The TMAC will meet via conference call on Wednesday, September
9, 2015 from 11:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m., Eastern
Daylight Savings Time (EDT). Please note that the meeting will close
early if the TMAC has completed its business.

ADDRESSES: For access to the conference call bridge, information on
services for individuals with disabilities, or to request special
assistance at the meeting, contact the person listed in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT below as soon as possible. Members of the public
who wish to dial in for the meeting must register in advance by sending
an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(attention Mark Crowell) by 11 p.m.
EDT on Friday, August 28, 2015.
    To facilitate public participation, members of the public are
invited to provide written comments on the issues to be considered by
the TMAC, as listed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below.
Associated meeting materials will be available at www.fema.gov/TMAC for
review by Sunday, August 30, 2015. Written comments to be considered by
the committee at the time of the meeting must be submitted and received
by Friday, August 28, 2015, identified by Docket ID FEMA-2014-0022, and
submitted by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

     Email: Address the email TO<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and
CC<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include the docket number in the subject
line of the message. Include name and contact detail in the body of the
email.
     Mail: Regulatory Affairs Division, Office of Chief
Counsel, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Room 8NE., Washington, DC 20472-3100.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the words
``Federal Emergency Management Agency'' and the docket number for this
action. Comments received will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
Docket: For docket access to read background documents or comments
received by the TMAC, go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for
the Docket ID FEMA-2014-0022.
    A public comment period will be held on September 9, 2015, from
4:15-4:30 p.m. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to no
more than two minutes. The public comment period will not exceed 15
minutes. Please note that the public comment period may end before the
time indicated, following the last call for comments. Contact the
individual listed below to register as a speaker by close of business
on Friday, August 28, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Crowell, Designated Federal
Officer for the TMAC, FEMA, 1800 South Bell Street Arlington, VA 22202,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, and email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The TMAC
Web site is: http://www.fema.gov/TMAC.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix.
    As required by the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of
2012, the TMAC makes recommendations to the FEMA Administrator on: (1)
How to improve, in a cost-effective manner, the (a) accuracy, general
quality, ease of use, and distribution and dissemination of flood
insurance rate maps and risk data; and (b) performance metrics and
milestones required to effectively and efficiently map flood risk areas
in the United States; (2) mapping standards and guidelines for (a)
flood insurance rate maps, and (b) data accuracy, data quality, data
currency, and data eligibility; (3) how to maintain, on an ongoing
basis, flood insurance rate maps and flood risk identification; (4)
procedures for delegating mapping activities to State and local mapping
partners; and (5) (a) methods for improving interagency and
intergovernmental coordination on flood mapping and flood risk
determination, and (b) a funding strategy to leverage and coordinate
budgets and expenditures across Federal agencies. Furthermore, the TMAC
is required to submit an annual report to the FEMA Administrator that
contains: (1) A description of the activities of the Council; (2) an
evaluation of the status and performance of flood insurance rate maps
and mapping activities to revise and update Flood Insurance Rate Maps;
and (3) a summary of recommendations made by the Council to the FEMA
Administrator.
    The TMAC must also develop recommendations on how to ensure that
flood insurance rate maps incorporate the best available climate
science to assess flood risks and ensure that FEMA uses the best
available methodology to consider the impact of the rise in sea level
and future development on flood risk. The TMAC must collect these
recommendations and present them to the FEMA Administrator in a future
conditions risk assessment and modeling report. Further, in accordance
with the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014, the TMAC
must develop a review report related to flood mapping in support of the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
    Agenda: On September 9, 2015, the TMAC members will present and
deliberate on draft narrative and proposed recommendations concerning
(1) the flood hazard mapping process and product, and (2) future
conditions methods and considerations that will be incorporated into
both the 2015 Annual Report and Future Conditions Report. A brief
public comment period will take place prior to the end of the meeting,
and before any voting on recommendations that takes place before the
full TMAC. In addition, the TMAC members will identify and coordinate
next steps of TMAC report development. The full agenda and related
briefing materials will be posted for review by September 2, 2015, at
http://www.fema.gov/TMAC.

    Dated: August 19, 2015.
W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2015-20884 Filed 8-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register: October 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 203)]
[Notices]
[Page 65025-65026]
[DOCID:fr21oc10-64]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2010-0925]

National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee (NOSAC) will
meet to discuss items related to safety of operations and other matters
affecting the oil and gas offshore industry. The purpose of this
meeting is to review and discuss reports and recommendations received
from the various NOSAC subcommittees. The Committee will then use this
information to formulate recommendations to the agency. This meeting
will be open to the public.

DATES: The meeting will take place on Tuesday, November 9, 2010, from 9
a.m. to 4:30 p.m. CST. This meeting may close early if all business is
finished. Written material and requests to make oral presentations
should reach the Coast Guard on or before October 25, 2010. Requests to
have a copy of your material distributed to each member of the
committee should reach the Coast Guard on or before October 25, 2010.

ADDRESSES: The Committee will meet at the Crowne Plaza Houston
Northpoint, Grand Ballroom 1&2, 425 Sam Houston Parkway East, Houston,
TX 77060, Tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>, on November 9, 2010. Public
participation is welcome and members of the public wishing to
participate may contact Commander P.W. Clark at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Written
comments should be sent to Commander P.W. Clark, Designated Federal
Officer of NOSAC, Commandant (CG-5222), U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 Second
Street, SW, Stop 7126, Washington, DC 20593-0001; or by fax to 202-372
1926, at least 15 days prior to the meeting. This notice is available
in our online docket, USCG-2010-0925, at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Commander P.W. Clark, Designated
Federal Officer (DFO) of NOSAC, or Mr. Kevin Pekarek, Assistant
Designated Federal Officer (ADFO), telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax 202-372-
1926.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463).
NOSAC provides advice and makes recommendations to the Coast Guard on
safety and other concerns affecting the offshore oil and gas industry
and assists the Coast Guard in formulating U.S. positions for
discussion and presentation at the International Maritime Organization
(IMO).

Agenda of Meeting

    The agenda for the November 9, 2010, Committee meeting is as
follows:
    (1) Roll call of committee members.
    (2) Approval of minutes from the September 29, 2010, meeting.
    (3) Presentation and discussion of reports, recommendations from
the subcommittees on:
    (a) Medical Evacuation of Injured Divers.
    (b) Marine Portable Quarters.
    (4) An update on the NOSAC recommendations received by the Coast
Guard and their status.
    (5) The Bureau of Ocean Energy, Management, Regulation and
Enforcement (BOEMRE) organizational and regulatory update.
    (6) A presentation on the DEEPWATER HORIZON ongoing Investigation.
    (7) An update on current Coast Guard regulatory initiatives.
    (8) An update on Standards, Training, Certification & Watch keeping
(STCW) involving U.S. vessels operating in foreign waters and the use
of non-U.S. citizens for their manning purposes.
    (9) International Maritime Organization (IMO) Updates concerning
what regulations have been released or will be released soon that may
be of interest to NOSAC.
    (10) Period for public comment.

Procedural

    The DFO will use the following procedures to facilitate the
meeting.
    (1) The meeting is open to the public.
    (2) Persons desiring to present statements at the meeting are
encouraged to notify the DFO listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section above before October 25, 2010.
    (3) The DFO will make every effort to accommodate all persons who
wish to participate, but admission will be subject to availability of
space in the meeting room. The meeting may adjourn early if scheduled
speakers complete their statements or questions in less time than is
scheduled for the meeting.
    (4) An individual, whether speaking in a personal or a
representative capacity on behalf of an organization, will be limited
to a three-minute statement and scheduled on a first-come, first-served
basis. If a large number of persons register to present comments, this
amount of time may be shortened to provide all registered persons an
opportunity to present their comments.
    (4) Any speaker prevented by time constraints from speaking will be
encouraged to submit written remarks, which will be made part of the
record.
    (5) For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request assistance at the meeting, please contact
the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above
before October 25, 2010.
    (6) The meeting will be recorded by a court reporter. A transcript
of the meeting and any material presented at the meeting will be made
available through the fido.gov Web site discussed in the MINUTES
section below.
    (7) The meeting is designed to invite public views and gather
information on relevant topics being discussed. However, the DFO, ADFO,
and Committee members may ask questions to clarify a statement.

Minutes

    Minutes from the meeting will be available for the public review
and copying 30 days following the meeting and can be accessed from the
fido.gov

Web site. Use ``code 68'' to identify NOSAC when accessing this
material.

    Dated: October 14, 2010.
F.J. Sturm,
Acting Director, Commercial Regulations and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2010-26545 Filed 10-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 147 (Wednesday, July 31, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46274-46279]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18412]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0439 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0514; FRL-9393-6]

Pyroxasulfone; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
pyroxasulfone in or on multiple commodities which are identified and
discussed later in this document. K-I Chemical U.S.A., Inc. requested
these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective July 31, 2013. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before September 30, 2013,
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-2012-0439 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-
0514, 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), EPA West 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: Lois Rossi, Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; 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. To access the OCSPP
test guidelines referenced in this document electronically, please go
to http://www.epa.gov/ocspp and select ``Test Methods and Guidelines.''

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-2012-0439 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0514 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 September 30, 2013. 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-2012-0439 and EPA-
HQ-OPP-2012-0514, 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.htm.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of July 25, 2012 (77 FR 43562) (FRL-9353-
6), 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
2F8026) by K-I Chemical U.S.A., Inc. The petition requested that 40 CFR
180.659 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the
herbicide, pyroxasulfone (3-[(5-(difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-3-
(trifluoromethyl) pyrazole-4-ylmethylsulfonyl]-4,5-dihydro-5,5-
dimethyl-1,2-oxazole), in or on wheat, grain at 0.01 parts per million
(ppm); pyroxasulfone (3-[(5-(difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-3-
(trifluoromethyl) pyrazole-4-ylmethylsulfonyl]-4,5-dihydro-5,5-
dimethyl-1,2-oxazole) and its metabolites M-1 (5-difluoromethoxy-1-
methyl-3-trifluoromethyl-1 H-pyrazol-4-ylmethanesulfonic acid) and M-25
(5-difluoromethoxy-3-trifluoromethyl-1 H-pyrazol-4-yl)methanesulfonic
acid) calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of pyroxasulfone, in
or on wheat, straw at 0.6 ppm; \1\ and pyroxasulfone (3-[(5-
(difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl) pyrazole-4-
ylmethylsulfonyl]-4,5-dihydro-5,5-dimethyl-1,2-oxazole) and its
metabolites M-1 (5-difluoromethoxy-1-methyl-3-trifluoromethyl-1 H-
pyrazol-4-ylmethanesulfonic acid), M-3 (5-difluoromethoxy-1-methyl-3-
trifluoromethyl-1 H-pyrazol-4-carboxylic acid), and M-25 (5-
difluoromethoxy-3-trifluoromethyl-1 H-pyrazol-4-yl) methanesulfonic
acid) calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of pyroxasulfone in
or on wheat, forage at 6.0 ppm and wheat, hay at 1.0 ppm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA's July 25, 2012 notification of the requested tolerance
contained an error. It stated that petitioners requested a tolerance
of the parent pyroxasulfone and the M-1 and M-25 metabolites on
``wheat, grain at 0.6 ppm'' instead of ``wheat, straw at 0.6 ppm''
as the petitioners requested. To address the error and provide
notice of requested tolerance, EPA issued a correction. See 77 FR
59577; FRL-9364-3 (Sept. 28, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, in the Federal Register of August 22, 2012 (77 FR 50661)
(FRL-9358-9), 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 2F8042) by K-I Chemical U.S.A., Inc. The petition
requested that 40 CFR 180.659 be amended by establishing tolerances for
residues of the pyroxasulfone, (3-[(5-(difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-3-
(trifluoromethyl) pyrazole-4-ylmethylsulfonyl]-4,5-dihydro-5,5-
dimethyl-1,2-oxazole) and its metabolite M-3 (5-difluoromethoxy-1-
methyl-3-trifluoromethyl-1H-pyrazol-4- carboxylic acid), in or on
cotton seed at 0.01 ppm and pyroxasulfone (3-[(5-(difluoromethoxy)-1-
methyl-3- (trifluoromethyl) pyrazole-4-ylmethylsulfonyl]-4,5-dihydro-
5,5-dimethyl-1,2-oxazole) and its metabolite M-1 (5-difluoromethoxy-1-
methyl-3-trifluoromethyl-1H-pyrazol-4- ylmethanesulfonic acid
calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of pyroxasulfone in or on
cotton, gin byproducts at 0.2 ppm.
    These documents referenced a summary of the petition prepared by
K.I. Chemical U.S.A., Inc. the registrant, c/o Landis International,
Inc., which is available in the associated dockets, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to
either of these notices of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
increased the proposed tolerances for wheat, grain and cotton,
undelinted seed and established a tolerance for milk. The reason for
these changes are explained 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 pyroxasulfone including
exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action.
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with pyroxasulfone
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. Pyroxasulfone acute toxicity to mammals is low by all routes
of exposure. Subchronic and chronic oral toxicity testing of
pyroxasulfone in mice, rats, and dogs produced a variety of adverse
effects in several target organs. Effects seen in animal studies
included cardiac toxicity (increased cardiomyopathy in mice and rats),
liver toxicity (centrilobular hepatocellular hypertrophy,
histopathological, and/or clinical pathological indicators),
neurotoxicity characterized by axonal/myelin degeneration in the
sciatic nerve (dog, mouse, and rat) and spinal cord sections (dog),
skeletal muscle myopathy, kidney

toxicity (increased incidence of chronic progressive nephropathy in
dogs and retrograde nephropathy in mice), urinary bladder mucosal
hyperplasia, inflammation, and urinary bladder transitional cell
papillomas (rats). Decreased body weight and enzyme changes were noted
in some studies. Immunotoxicity studies in rats and mice showed no
evidence of immunotoxic effects from pyroxasulfone. Pyroxasulfone was
moderately toxic to rats following a 4-week dermal exposure producing
local inflammation and systemic effects of minimal to mild cardiac
myofiber degeneration at the limit dose. No adverse effects were noted
in a 28-day inhalation study at the highest-dose tested. Pyroxasulfone
did not exhibit developmental toxicity in the rat and exhibited only
slight developmental toxicity in rabbits (reduced fetal weight and
resorptions) at the limit dose. However, developmental effects were
noted in post-natal day (PND) 21 offspring in the rat developmental
neurotoxicity (DNT) study characterized as decreased brain weight and
morphometric changes. Developmental effects in the rabbit developmental
study and DNT study occurred in the absence of maternal toxicity,
indicating potential increased quantitative susceptibility of
offspring. In a reproductive toxicity in rats reduced pup weight and
body weight gains during lactation occurred at similar or higher doses
causing pronounced maternal toxicity (reduced body weight, body weight
gain, and food consumption and increased kidney weight, cardiomyopathy,
and urinary bladder mucosal hyperplasia with inflammation). In cancer
studies in mice and rats, renal tubular adenomas were observed in male
mice and urinary bladder transitional cell papillomas were observed in
male rats. The kidney adenomas in male mice were determined to be
spontaneous and not treatment-related based on the following
considerations:
    1. Absence of any cytotoxicity (degeneration or individual cell
necrosis) in studies ranging from 14 days to 18 months at doses up to
15,000 ppm.
    2. Absence of cell regeneration leading to precursor lesions such
as atypical tubular hyperplasia at all time points and doses up to
15,000 ppm.
    3. Lack of exacerbation of chronic progressive nephropathy, a
spontaneous disease in rodents that results in cell regeneration which
can result in renal tubule tumors in chronic studies.
    4. Lack of a clear dose response in the distribution of tumors
between test substance treated groups.

The urinary bladder tumors seen in male rats were determined to be a
threshold effect. Pyroxasulfone exposure causes the growth of crystals
in the urinary tract with subsequent calculi formation resulting in
cellular damage. Crystal formation in the absence of calculi is not
associated with hyperplasia or urinary bladder tumors; therefore, the
formation of urinary bladder calculi is the prerequisite for subsequent
hyperplasia and neoplasia. In other words, urinary bladder tumors do
not develop at doses too low to produce calculi. There is also a clear
threshold of 1,000 ppm (42.55 milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day)) for
development of calculi and tumorigenesis. The point of departure (POD)
of 50 ppm (2.0 mg/kg/day) selected for chronic risk assessment is not
expected to result in urinary bladder calculi formation, which is a
prerequisite for subsequent hyperplasia and neoplasia. Therefore, the
Agency has determined that the quantification of risk using a non-
linear approach (i.e., Reference dose (RfD)) will adequately account
for all chronic toxicity, including carcinogenicity, that could result
from exposure to pyroxasulfone. There is no concern for mutagenicity.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by pyroxasulfone 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 ``Pyroxasulfone Human Health Risk
Assessment for Use of Pyroxasulfone on Wheat and Cotton,'' p. 36 in
docket ID numbers EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0439 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0514.

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 pyroxasulfone used for
human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule
published in the Federal Register of February 29, 2012 (77 FR 12207)
(FRL-9334-2).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to pyroxasulfone, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing pyroxasulfone
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.659. EPA assessed dietary exposures from
pyroxasulfone in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. Such effects were identified
for pyroxasulfone. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food
consumption information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in
America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed 100
percent crop treated (PCT) at tolerance-level residues adjusted upward
to account for metabolites which are not in the tolerance expression
from specific use patterns.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's NHANES/WWEIA. As to residue levels in food, EPA made
the same assumptions (adjusted tolerance-level residues and 100 PCT) as
in the acute dietary exposure assessment.
    iii. Cancer. EPA determines whether quantitative cancer exposure
and risk assessments are appropriate for a food-use pesticide based on
the weight of the evidence from cancer studies and other relevant data.
Cancer risk is quantified using a linear or nonlinear approach. If
sufficient information on the carcinogenic mode of action is available,

a threshold or nonlinear approach is used and a cancer RfD is
calculated based on an earlier noncancer key event. If carcinogenic
mode of action data are not available, or if the mode of action data
determines a mutagenic mode of action, a default linear cancer slope
factor approach is utilized. Based on the data summarized in Unit
III.A., EPA has concluded that a nonlinear RfD approach is appropriate
for assessing cancer risk to pyroxasulfone. Cancer risk was assessed
using the same exposure estimates as discussed in Unit III.C.1.ii.
    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA did not use
anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the dietary assessment
for pyroxasulfone. Adjusted tolerance level residues and/or 100 PCT
were assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for pyroxasulfone in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of pyroxasulfone. 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 Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM
GW), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of
pyroxasulfone for acute exposures are estimated to be 17 parts per
billion (ppb) for surface water and 210 ppb for ground water. EDWCs of
pyroxasulfone for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are
estimated to be 3.2 ppb for surface water and 174 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 210 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 174 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). Pyroxasulfone is not
registered for any specific use patterns that would result in
residential exposure.
    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
pyroxasulfone to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other
substances, and pyroxasulfone does not appear to produce a toxic
metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that pyroxasulfone 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 Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

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. The pre-natal and post-natal
toxicity database for pyroxasulfone includes developmental toxicity
studies in rats and rabbits, a DNT study in rats, and a 2-generation
reproduction toxicity study in rats. As discussed in Unit III.A.,
evidence of increased susceptibility of fetuses and offspring was seen
in the DNT study and developmental toxicity study in rabbits following
in utero or post-natal exposure to pyroxasulfone. No increased
susceptibility was seen in the rat developmental or reproduction
toxicity studies. In rabbits, developmental toxicity was only seen at
the limit dose of 1,000 mg/kg/day as reduced fetal weight and increased
fetal resorptions with a NOAEL of 500 mg/kg/day for these effects,
compared to no maternal toxicity at these doses. In a DNT study in
rats, offspring toxicity (decreased brain weight and morphometric
changes on PND 21) was seen at 300 mg/kg/day compared to no maternal
toxicity at 900 mg/kg/day. The degree of concern for the increased
susceptibility seen in these studies is low and there are no residual
uncertainties based on the following considerations:
    i. The increased susceptibility is occurring at high doses.
    ii. NOAELs and LOAELs have been identified for all effects of
concern, and thus a clear dose response has been well defined.
    iii. The PODs selected for risk assessment are protective of the
fetal/offspring effects.
    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:
    i. The toxicity database for pyroxasulfone is complete.
    ii. Pyroxasulfone is a neurotoxic chemical and there is evidence of
increased susceptibility of offspring with regard to neurotoxic effects
in the rat DNT study. There is also evidence of increased
susceptibility of fetuses/offspring with regard to non-neurotoxic
effects in the rabbit developmental toxicity study. However, the
concern for the increased susceptibility is low for the reasons stated
in Unit III.D.2.; therefore, EPA determined that a 10X FQPA safety
factor is not necessary to protect infants and children.
    iii. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100 PCT and adjusted tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to pyroxasulfone in drinking water. These
assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by
pyroxasulfone.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate

PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to pyroxasulfone will occupy 3.6% of the aPAD for all infants (< 1-
year-old), the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
pyroxasulfone from food and water will utilize 48% of the cPAD for all
infants (< 1-year-old) the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. There are no residential uses for pyroxasulfone.
    3. Short- and intermediate-term risk. Short- and intermediate-term
aggregate exposure takes into account short- and intermediate-term
residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background exposure level). Short- and
intermediate-term adverse effects were identified; however,
pyroxasulfone is not registered for any use patterns that would result
in short- or intermediate-term residential exposure. Because there is
no short- or 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 short-
and intermediate-term risk), no further assessment of short- or
intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic
dietary risk assessment for evaluating short- and intermediate-term
risk for pyroxasulfone.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. As explained in Unit
III.A., the Agency has determined that the quantification of risk using
a non-linear (i.e., RfD) approach will adequately account for all
chronic toxicity, including carcinogenicity, that could result from
exposure to pyroxasulfone. Therefore, based on the results of the
chronic risk assessment discussed in Unit III.E.2., pyroxasulfone 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 pyroxasulfone residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (a liquid chromatography/mass
spectrometry/mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) method) is available to
enforce the tolerance expression. The method may be requested from:
Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701
Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_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 pyroxasulfone.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    EPA has increased the proposed tolerance levels for wheat, grain
from 0.01 ppm to 0.03 ppm and cotton, undelinted seed from 0.01 ppm to
0.04 ppm. The increase in these two tolerance levels are due to the use
of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development tolerance
calculation procedures, inclusion of different metabolites of concern,
significant figures, and use of all residue field trials. The proposed
commodity term, ``cotton, seed'' is being revised to ``cotton,
undelinted seed.''
    Additionally, EPA is establishing a tolerance for pyroxasulfone in
milk as a result of the increased livestock burden from use of
pyroxasulfone on wheat and cotton commodities.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of
pyroxasulfone, 3-[[[5-(difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)-
1H-pyrazol-4-yl]methyl]sulfonyl]-4,5-dihydro-5,5-dimethylisoxazole,
including its metabolites and degradates, as set forth in the
regulatory text.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule 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 final rule has
been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule
is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) 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 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 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 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 final rule. In addition,
this final 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) (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 of 1995 (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: July 25, 2013.
Lois Rossi,
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. Section 180.659 is amend by:
0
i. Adding alphabetically the following commodities to the table in
paragraph (a)(1);
0
ii. Adding alphabetically the following commodities to the table in
paragraph (a)(2); and
0
iii. Adding paragraph (a)(4).
    The additions read as follows:

Sec.  180.659  Pyroxasulfone; tolerances for residues.

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

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

                                * * * * *
Cotton, undelinted seed.....................................        0.04
Wheat, grain................................................        0.03
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cotton, gin byproducts.....................................         0.20

                                * * * * *
Wheat, forage..............................................         6.0
Wheat, hay.................................................         1.0
Wheat, straw...............................................         0.60
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (4) Tolerances are established for residues of the herbicide
pyroxasulfone, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the
commodities in the following table. Compliance with the tolerance
levels specified in the following table is to be determined by
measuring only the sum of pyroxasulfone [3-[[[5-(difluoromethoxy)-1-
methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl]methyl]sulfonyl]-4,5-
dihydro-5,5-dimethylisoxazole] and its metabolites [5-
(difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrazol-4-
yl]methanesulfonic acid (M-1) and 5-(difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-3-
(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrazol-4-carboxylic acid (M-3), calculated as the
stoichiometric equivalent of pyroxasulfone, in or on the commodity.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Milk.......................................................       0.003
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-18412 Filed 7-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P