[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24897-24898]
[FR Doc No: E9-12136]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Purpose, Use and Effect of Field Operations Training Manual.

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Interpretation of Internal Agency Document.

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

SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is to restate and confirm the
Agency's policy regarding the purpose, use and effect of the paper and
electronic versions of FMCSA's Field Operations Training Manual (FOTM
and eFOTM).

DATES: Effective Date: This interpretation restates policy already in
effect.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Snyder, Trial Attorney, Office
of the Chief Counsel, Enforcement Division, 19900 Governors Drive,
Suite 210, Olympia Fields, IL 60461, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
Genevieve Sapir, Attorney-Advisor, Office of the Chief Counsel,
Regulatory Affairs Division, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Background

    The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA)
established the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (``FMCSA'')
as a new operating administration within the Department of
Transportation, effective January 1, 2000 (Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat.
1748, December 9, 1999). Continuing the practice first established by
FMCSA's predecessors, the Office of Motor Carriers and the Office of
Motor Carrier Safety, both within the Federal Highway Administration,
FMCSA issues guidance to its Field Service Centers and State Division
Offices, in the form of the Field Operations Training Manual (FOTM).
Volume III (Enforcement: General Functions of an Investigator) of the
first FOTM, which was issued by the new operating administration in
January 2000, states: ``This chapter has been prepared to assist the
Investigator in the performance of investigative work. The intent is to
present investigative procedures which can be used while conducting all
types of investigations.'' This guidance is now stored and distributed
in electronic format in the eFOTM, which is periodically updated as new
policies are adopted in response to legislation and new program
initiatives. A redacted version of the eFOTM is available in the FMCSA
Electronic Reading Room at: http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/foia/electronicreadingroom.htm. FMCSA redacted certain information from the
eFOTM available at this Web site in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act.
    The eFOTM is, and has been, best characterized as internal
enforcement guidelines, a ``best practices'' guide for the Agency's
Safety Investigators and other enforcement staff. It is intended to
provide guidance to assist with the sound exercise of discretion in
conducting investigations, compliance reviews, roadside inspections and
safety audits. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit recognized that the FOTM does not impose new
substantive burdens, in the sense that it neither requires nor
prohibits any particular actions on the part of motor carriers.
Aulenback, Inc. v. Federal Highway Admin., 103 F.3d 156, 169 (DC Cir.
1997). Instead, ``the Manual simply provides guidance for [FMCSA staff]
seeking to identify motor carrier operations that pose a potential
danger to public safety.'' Id. The District of Columbia Circuit has
also held that since the FOTM is not a legislative rule, section 553 of
the Administrative Procedure Act did not require notice and comment
rulemaking to precede adoption of the manual. American Trucking Ass'ns,
Inc. v. DOT, 166 F.3d 374 (DC Cir. 1999).

Current Policy

    The Agency continues to regard the FOTM and eFOTM as internal
enforcement guidance; the guidance does not alter underlying
substantive legal requirements and does not provide an independent
basis for enforcement. The investigatory procedures set forth in the
eFOTM, and whether and to what extent Agency employees follow them, are
not relevant in determining whether Federal motor carrier statutes or
regulations have been violated or the appropriate penalty to be
assessed for such violations. If an employee fails to comply with
investigative, inspection, audit or other guidelines, the Agency will
address that departure from recommended procedures internally, on a
case-by-case basis, and may consider disciplinary action, training or
other appropriate measures. However, the Agency hereby provides public
notice that it will not consider an FMCSA or State employee's failure
to follow the FOTM or eFOTM guidance as a defense to penalties or
violations assessed against drivers or motor carriers. An FMCSA or
State employee's failure to follow the FOTM or eFOTM guidance will not
excuse violations of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations,
Federal Motor Carrier Commercial Regulations, or the Hazardous
Materials Regulations by any person, including motor carriers and
drivers, nor will it provide grounds for reducing civil penalties. See
In the Matter of J. Line, Inc., dba J-Line Transp., Docket No. FMCSA-
2008-1087 (Administrative Law Judge's Order Denying Cross-Motions for
Final Order) (Jan. 13, 2009); Swift Transp. Co., Inc., Docket No.
FMCSA-2004-17248-63 (Order Respecting Field Operations Training Manual)
(Jan. 12, 2007).

    Issued on: May 19, 2009.
Rose A. McMurray,
Acting Deputy Administrator.
 [FR Doc. E9-12136 Filed 5-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 2 (Friday, January 3, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 271-274]
[FR Doc No: 2019-28388]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2019-0933]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone; Cooper River; Charleston, SC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary security
zone on certain navigable waters of the Cooper River within a 500-yard
radius of the South Carolina State Port Authority Cruise Ship Terminal
in Charleston, SC during a visit by the Commandant of the United States
Coast Guard. This action is necessary to protect personnel from
potential hazards and security risk associated with the Commandant's
speaking engagement. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons
and vessels from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or
remaining within the security zone unless authorized by the Captain of
the Port Charleston (COTP) or a designated representative. We invite
your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before January 21, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
0219-0933 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant Chad Ray, Sector
Charleston Office of Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone (843)
740-3184, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security

FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On November 18, 2019, Sector Charleston personnel were notified
that the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard will give the State of the
Coast Guard Address at the South Carolina State Port Authority Cruise
Ship Terminal on the Cooper River in Charleston, SC. The security zone
will impact waters of the Cooper River in Charleston, SC. The Captain
of the Port Charleston (COTP) has determined that potential hazards
associated with the event would be a security concern for participants,
spectators, and others on the navigable waters around the event.
    Section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C.
553(b)) authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not being able to facilitate a full 30 day comment
period with respect to this proposed rule because the Coast Guard did
not receive necessary information regarding the Commandant of the
United States Coast Guard's visit near the South Carolina State Port
Authority Cruise Ship Terminal in Charleston, SC until November 18,
2019. As a result, the Coast Guard did not have sufficient time to both
publish an NPRM and to maintain a 30 day comment period prior to the
events. There is sufficient time to allow for some amount of comment
period which the Coast Guard is facilitating. A full 30 day comment
period would result in a delay in the effective date of this rule and
such a delay would be contrary to the public interest because immediate
action is needed to necessary to protect personnel from potential
hazards and security risk associated with the Commandant's speaking
engagement.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the security of
persons, vessels, and the marine environment before, during, and after
the scheduled event. The Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking under
authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034.

III. Discussion of the Rule

    The COTP is proposing to establish a temporary security on the
waters of the Cooper River in Charleston, South Carolina during the
State of the Coast Guard Address from 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. on
February 20, 2020. The security zone would cover all navigable waters
within a 500-yard radius of the South Carolina State Port Authority
Cruise Ship Terminal in Charleston, SC. The duration of the zone is
intended to ensure the security of persons, vessels, and these
navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled address. No
vessels or person would be permitted to enter the security zone without
obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or
remain within the regulated area may contact the COTP by telephone at
(843) 740-7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel
16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit
through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area is granted, all
persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the
instructions of the COTP or a designated representative. The COTP will
provide notice of the safety zone by Local Notice to Mariners,
Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.
The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this
document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and
we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on: (1) Persons and
vessels may enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the
regulated area during the enforcement periods if authorized by Sector
Charleston COTP or a designated representative; (2) vessels not able to
enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area
without authorization from Sector Charleston COTP or a designated
representative may operate in the surrounding areas during the
enforcement period; (3) the Coast Guard will provide advance
notification of the safety zone to the local maritime community by
Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners; and (4) the
regulated area will be limited in time, scope, and only impact small
designated areas of the Cooper River.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
security zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a two hour
security zone that will prohibit persons and vessels from entering,
transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within a limited area on
the Cooper River during the State of the Coast Guard Address by
Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard. It is categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS
Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental
Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information
that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact
from this proposed rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for
alternate instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and
submissions in response to this document, see DHS's Correspondence
System of Records notice (84 FR 48645, September 26, 2018).
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, 160.5; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add a temporary Sec.  165.T07-0933 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T07-0933   Security Zone; Cooper River, Charleston, SC.

    (a) Location. All waters of the Cooper River within a 500-yard
radius the South Carolina State Port Authority Cruise Ship Terminal in
Charleston, SC.
    (b) Definition. The term ``designated representative'' means Coast
Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty
officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and
Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port (COTP) Charleston in the enforcement of the
regulated areas.
    (c) Regulations. (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from
entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the
regulated area unless authorized by the COTP Charleston or a designated
representative.
    (2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor
in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the COTP Charleston
by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or a designated representative via VHF
radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization is
granted, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must
comply with the instructions of the COTP Charleston or a designated
representative.
    (3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by
Marine Safety Information Bulletins, Local Notice to Mariners,
Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.
    (d) Enforcement period. This rule will be enforced from 12:00 p.m.
to 2:00 p.m. on February 20, 2020.

    Dated: December 26, 2019.
J.W. Reed,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Charleston.
[FR Doc. 2019-28388 Filed 1-2-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: May 26, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 101)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 29435-29441]
[DOCID:fr26my10-7]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0920; FRL-8827-7]

Diquat Dibromide; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of diquat,
derived from applications of diquat dibromide, in or on canola meal and
canola seed. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. requested these tolerances
under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). This regulation
also corrects minor errors in the regulations for diquat at 40 CFR
180.266.

DATES: This regulation is effective May 26, 2010. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before July 26, 2010, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0920. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

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

B. How Can I 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.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr. To
access the harmonized test guidelines referenced in this document
electronically, please go to http://www.epa.gov/oppts 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-2009-0920 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 July 26, 2010. 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 that does not contain any 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 a copy of
your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0920, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of February 4, 2010 (75 FR 5793) (FRL-8807-
5), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
9F7639) by Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., P.O Box 18300, Greensboro,
NC 27419. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.226 be amended by
establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide diquat, 6,7-
dihydrodipyrido(1,2-a:2'1'-c)pyrazinediium, derived from application of
the dibromide salt and calculated as the cation, in or on canola, meal
at 3.0 parts per million (ppm); and canola, seed at 1.0 ppm. That
notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Sygenta Crop
Protection, Inc., the registrant, which is available in the docket,
http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response
to the notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
increased the tolerance levels for canola, meal and canola, seed to 6.0
ppm and 2.0 ppm, respectively. The reason for these changes is
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 section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors
specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, 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 diquat dibromide
including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this
action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with diquat
dibromide 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.
    Diquat dibromide exhibits low acute toxicity via the oral and
inhalation routes of exposure but is moderately to severely toxic via
the dermal route of exposure. Diquat dibromide is not a skin irritant
nor a dermal sensitizer, but it is considered a moderate to severe eye
irritant.
    Subchronic and chronic studies in several species indicate multiple
target sites for diquat dibromide toxicity. In subchronic dermal
exposure studies in rats, diquat dibromide showed evidence of severe
systemic toxicity, including high mortality and clinical signs. In a
subchronic inhalation study in rats, the lung was determined to be the
primary target site for inhalation toxicity. Chronic feeding studies in
dogs, rats, mice, and rabbits indicate that target sites include the
eyes and kidneys in both males and females and the adrenals and
epididymides in males. There was no evidence of neurotoxicity in acute
and subchronic studies in rats and no evidence of endocrine disruption
or immunotoxicity in the toxicology studies available for diquat
dibromide. In accordance with the 1986 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk
Assessment, diquat dibromide was classified in Group E (evidence of
non-carcinogenicity to humans), based on a lack of evidence of
carcinogenicity in acceptable studies in rats and mice and a lack of
concern for mutagenicity.
    There was no evidence of increased quantitative or qualitative
susceptibility of in utero animals or of offspring in developmental
toxicity studies in mice, rabbits, and rats or in the 2-generation
reproduction study in rats. Effects in the offspring were observed only
at or above dose levels which resulted in parental toxicity.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by diquat dibromide as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://
www.regulations.gov in the document ``Diquat Dibromide: HED Risk
Assessment for Tolerance Reassessment Eligibility Document (TRED.),''
p. 10 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0920.

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 diquat dibromide used
for human risk assessment can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in
the document ``Diquat Dibromide: Human Health Risk Assessment for the
Section 18 Use on Canola in Oklahoma and Kentucky,'' p. 3 in docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0920.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to diquat dibromide, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing diquat dibromide
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.226. EPA assessed dietary exposures from
diquat dibromide 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 diquat dibromide. In the acute
neurotoxicity study in rats, clinical signs of systemic toxicity (e.g.,
piloerection, diarrhea, urinary incontinence, upward curvature of the
spine, subdued behavior) and decreased body-weight gains were observed
after a single dose. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used
food consumption information from the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of
Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA
assumed tolerance-level residues and 100 percent crop treated (PCT) for
all existing uses of diquat dibromide and the proposed new use on
canola.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996
and 1998 CSFII. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-
level residues and 100 PCT for crops with direct diquat uses. For crops
with tolerances to cover irrigation with diquat-treated water,
anticipated residue levels from irrigation trials were used in
conjunction with estimates of percent of crops irrigated. For fish,
average residues were assumed. Default processing factors from Dietary
Exposure Evaluation Model v.7.81 were used in the analysis for all
processed commodities, except potato chips and dried potato flakes,
which have their own tolerances based on submitted processing data.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the results of carcinogenicity studies in
rats and mice, EPA classified diquat dibromide in Group E (evidence of
non-carcinogenicity to humans). Therefore, an exposure assessment to
evaluate cancer risk is unnecessary for this chemical.
    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. Section 408(b)(2)(E)
of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the
anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual
levels of pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If EPA
relies on such information, EPA must require pursuant to section
408(f)(1) of FFDCA that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is
established, modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels
in food are not above the levels anticipated. For the present action,
EPA will issue such Data Call-Ins as are required by section
408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA and authorized under section 408(f)(1) of FFDCA.
Data will be required to be submitted no later than 5 years from the
date of issuance of these tolerances.
    Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data
on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary
risk only if:
     Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a
valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop
is likely to contain the pesticide residue.
     Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group.
     Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food
consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not
understate exposure for the population in such area.
In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any
estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate
of PCT as required by section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA, EPA may require
registrants to submit data on PCT.
    The Agency estimated the PCT for existing uses as follows:
    EPA estimated PCT for several commodities that have tolerances to
cover inadvertent residues of diquat from irrigation with diquat
dibromide-treated water: Barley 36%; corn 19%; legume vegetables
(subgroup 6C) 32%; oats 7%; sorghum 15%; soybean 9%; sugarcane 54%; and
wheat 14%. One hundred PCT was assumed for all other irrigated crops
and crops with direct diquat dibromide uses.
    EPA estimated PCT for these commodities by estimating the percent
crop irrigated, which serves as an upperbound for crops that may be
exposed to diquat in irrigation water. The percent crop irrigated is an
estimate of the share of total production that is irrigated, and is
based on 2009 data from USDA's National Agricultural Statistics
Service. Use of these estimates in the exposure assessment is
conservative, because it is the equivalent of assuming 100% of
irrigated crops are irrigated with water from diquat-treated canals. In
fact, even in areas with surface water delivery systems, all irrigation
canals may not be treated with diquat. Additionally, some crops, even
in the heavily irrigated areas of the West, are not irrigated, such as
dryland grain production.
    The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit
III.C.1.iv. have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates
are derived from Federal market survey data, which are reliable and
have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that the
percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an underestimation.
As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption information and
consumption information for significant subpopulations is taken into
account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating the exposure
of significant subpopulations including several regional groups. Use of
this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment process ensures
that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate exposure for any
significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency to be reasonably
certain that no regional population is exposed to residue levels higher
than those estimated by the Agency. Other than the data available
through national food consumption surveys, EPA does not have available
reliable information on the regional consumption of food to which
diquat dibromide may be applied in a particular area.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. Diquat dibromide is
registered for both terrestrial and aquatic uses. The Agency used
screening level water exposure models to estimate residues of diquat in
drinking water from the terrestrial uses. These simulation

models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/
transport characteristics of diquat dibromide. Further information
regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure
assessment can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/
index.htm.
    Based on the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) and
Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the
estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of diquat dibromide
from terrestrial uses for acute exposures are estimated to be 13.2
parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 0.006 ppb for ground
water. The EDWCs for chronic exposures are estimated to be 0.4 ppb for
surface water and 0.006 ppb for ground water.
    Diquat dibromide is registered for aquatic weed control and, as
such, may be applied directly to bodies of water. The maximum
contaminant level (MCL) for diquat established by the EPA Office of
Water is 20 ppb. EPA does not expect residues from direct applications
of diquat dibromide to water to exceed the MCL because of the tendency
of diquat to sorb nearly irreversably to soil and sediment.
    Since direct aquatic applications are estimated to result in higher
concentrations of diquat in drinking water than terrestrial uses, EPA
used the MCL of 20 ppb to assess the contribution to drinking water in
both the acute and chronic dietary risk assessments.
    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).
    Diquat dibromide is currently registered for the following uses
that could result in residential exposures: Applications to turf,
recreational ponds and lakes; general weed control in and around home
and garden sites; and landscape uses by residential handlers. EPA
assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions:
Residential handlers may receive short-term dermal and inhalation
exposure when applying diquat dibromide products. EPA assessed short-
term dermal and inhalation residential handler exposures for four
scenarios: Mixing, loading, and applying products with a low-pressure
handwand or backpack sprayer; and applying diquat dibromide products in
an aerosol can or using a trigger pump sprayer. Adults and children may
also be exposed to diquat dibromide residues on a short-term basis
through dermal contact with treated turf and from swimming activities
in treated recreational ponds and lakes. In addition, toddlers may
receive short-term oral exposure from incidental ingestion during post-
application activities on treated turf. EPA assessed the following
post-application exposure scenarios:
    i. Adult and toddler post-application dermal exposure,
    ii. Recreational exposure from playing golf on treated turf,
    iii. Toddlers' incidental ingestion of pesticide residues on lawns
from hand-to-mouth transfer,
    iv. Toddlers' object-to-mouth transfer from mouthing of pesticide-
treated turfgrass,
    v. Toddlers' incidental ingestion of soil from pesticide-treated
residential areas, and
    vi. Recreational exposure of adults and children from swimming in
treated ponds and lakes.
    Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic
inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www.epa.gov/
pesticides/trac/science/trac6a05.pdf.
    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 diquat dibromide to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and diquat dibromide does not
appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For
the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
diquat dibromide 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://
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 Food Quality
Protection Act (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 prenatal and postnatal
toxicity database for diquat dibromide includes developmental toxicity
studies in rats, mice, and rabbits and a 2-generation reproduction
toxicity study in rats. There was no evidence of increased quantitative
or qualitative susceptibility of fetuses or offspring in any of these
studies.
    In the developmental study in rats, fetal effects (decreased fetal,
litter, and gravid uterine weights; an increased incidence of fetuses
with hemorrhagic kidney; and delayed skeletal ossification) occurred at
a higher dose than the dose causing effects in maternal animals
(decreased body-weight gains and food consumption during dosing). At
the LOAEL for fetal effects, maternal effects included one death and
clinical signs (piloerection and subdued activity). In the
developmental study in rabbits, fetal effects (decreased fetal body
weight, an increased incidence of friable/mottled livers, and an
increased incidence of minor skeletal alterations) also occurred at a
higher dose than the dose causing maternal toxicity (body-weight loss
and decreased food consumption). At the LOAEL for fetal effects,
maternal effects included deaths and clinical signs (diarrhea, subdued
activity, thin appearance, mucus, blood, little or no feces in tray).
Results in the mouse developmental toxicity study were similar. Fetal
effects (decreased fetal body weight and an increased incidence of
overall skeletal alterations) occurred at a higher dose than the dose
causing maternal toxicity (mortality, clinical signs (piloerection,
respiratory sounds), and decreased body weight gain during the dosing
period). Maternal effects at the LOAEL for fetal effects included
additional clinical signs (abnormal posture, lethargy, tremors,
unsteadiness on feet, emaciation, ptosis) and a slight decrease in body
weight (91% of control) at termination.
    In the 2-generation reproduction study in rats, offspring effects
included a decreased number of live pups per litter on days 1-22,
decreased pup body weight gain during lactation, and an increased
incidence of kidney lesions. Parental effects, including clinical
signs, ulceration of the tongue, and partial/

total cataract, were observed at the same dose causing toxicity in the
offspring.
    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 diquat dibromide is adequate to assess
its prenatal and postnatal toxicity. In accordance with Part 158
Toxicology Data requirements, an immunotoxicity study (Harmonized Test
Guideline 870.7800) is required for diquat dibromide. In the absence of
specific immunotoxicity studies, EPA has evaluated the available
toxicity data for evidence of immunotoxicity. There are no indications
in the available studies that organs associated with immune function,
such as the thymus and spleen, are affected by diquat dibromide.
Therefore, EPA does not believe that conducting immunotoxicity testing
will result in a point of departure lower than those already selected
for diquat dibromide, and an additional database uncertainty factor is
not needed to account for the lack of this study.
    ii. There is no indication that diquat dibromide 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 diquat dibromide results in
increased susceptibility in in utero rats, rabbits, or mice in the
prenatal developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation
reproduction study.
    iv. There are no significant residual uncertainties identified in
the exposure databases for diquat dibromide. Additional information
from the canola residue studies on the length of storage of canola
samples prior to analysis and confirmatory residue data for canola are
required. However, as explained in this Unit, EPA does not expect these
data to have a measurable impact on exposure estimates for diquat
dibromide.
    a. Data from the West German and United Kingdom field trials on the
length of storage of canola samples prior to analysis were not
submitted. EPA is requiring these data; however, EPA already has data
for other crops showing that diquat dibromide is stable in frozen
storage for 6 to 8 months. In addition, based on its structure, EPA
expects diquat dibromide to be stable in frozen storage much longer
than the 6 to 8 months for which data are available. Therefore, EPA
does not expect the length of time the samples were stored to affect
its conclusions regarding the field trial studies.
    b. EPA has determined that the residue trials conducted in European
Union (EU) countries are adequate to support tolerances and conditional
registration of diquat dibromide as a preharvest desiccant on canola in
the United States. However, EPA is aware that the Interregional
Research Project number 4 (IR-4) has conducted field trials in the U.S.
that would support this same use pattern. Residues of diquat dibromide
on canola grown in the U.S. are not expected to differ significantly
from residues reported in the EU studies, since harvest aid/desiccant
applications are made late in the growing season with little time
between application and harvest. In addition, since the recommended
tolerances for canola seed and meal have been increased by a factor of
2X to harmonize with Codex (See Unit IV.C below), there is little
chance residues in the U.S. trials will exceed these tolerances.
Nevertheless, since the IR-4 field work has already been completed and
the study reports will be available in July, 2011, EPA is requiring
that these studies be submitted as a condition of registration to
confirm the tolerance levels. EPA notes that canola is a minor
contributor to estimated dietary exposure in both the acute and chronic
dietary exposure assessments, accounting for less than 1% of total
exposure for the most highly exposed population subgroup (children 1 to
2 years old) in each case. Therefore, even if the U.S. field trials
were to indicate higher residues than the EU trials, the impact on
dietary exposure would be negligible.
    The acute dietary food exposure assessment was performed based on
100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. The chronic dietary exposure
assessment was refined using reliable irrigation data from USDA,
average residues for fish from valid residue studies, and anticipated
residues for irrigated crops that were derived from valid irrigation
trials. The established MCL of 20 ppb used in the acute and chronic
dietary exposure assessments is a conservative value that is considered
protective of exposures from both terrestrial and direct aquatic
applications of diquat dibromide. EPA used similarly conservative
assumptions to assess postapplication exposure of children as well as
incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not
underestimate the exposure and risks posed by diquat dibromide.

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 aPAD and chronic 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 diquat dibromide will occupy 1% of the aPAD for children, 1 to 2
years 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
diquat dibromide from food and water will utilize 35% of the cPAD for
children, 1 to 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
diquat dibromide is not expected.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Diquat
dibromide 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 diquat dibromide.
    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 aggregate MOEs of 110 for infants
and toddlers, 150 for children 6 to 12 years old, and 260 for teenagers
and adults. The aggregate MOEs for infants and toddlers include dietary
exposures from food and drinking water as well as dermal and incidental
oral postapplication exposures from activities on treated turf. The
aggregate MOE for children includes dietary exposures from food and
drinking water as well as dermal postapplication exposure from
activities on treated turf and exposures from swimming in ponds and
lakes treated with diquat dibromide. The aggregate MOEs for teenagers
and adult population subgroups include dietary exposures, residential
handler dermal exposures, dermal postapplication

exposures from activities on treated turf, and exposures from swimming
in ponds and lakes treated with diquat dibromide. EPA did not aggregate
residential handler inhalation exposures with exposures by other routes
in the aggregate exposure assessment for teenagers and adults, since
the effects associated with inhalation exposure (increased mean lung
weight in males, mottling and reddening of lungs in females, and lung
lesions) are different from those used to assess the dermal and oral
routes (body-weight loss and decreased food consumption). Inhalation
MOEs for residential handlers ranged from 570 (aerosol can application)
to 11,000,000 (trigger sprayer). Because EPA's level of concern for
diquat dibromide is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are 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).
    EPA did not establish a POD for use in assessing intermediate-term
residential exposures, because diquat dibromide is not registered for
any use patterns that would result in such exposures. 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 diquat dibromide.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, diquat dibromide 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 diquat dibromide residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (High Performance Liquid
Chromatographic Method (HPLC)) is available to enforce the tolerance
expression. The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical
Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft.
Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Method A (a spectrophotometric method) in the
Pesticide Analytical Manual (PAM) Vol. II. is also available to enforce
tolerances for residues of diquat in/on plant and livestock
commodities.

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 section
408(b)(4) of FFDCA. The Codex Alimentarius is a joint U.N. 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, section 408(b)(4) of FFDCA requires that EPA
explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has established an MRL for diquat in or on rapeseed
(which includes canola seed) at 2.0 ppm. This MRL is the same as the
tolerance being established for diquat dibromide on canola, seed in the
United States.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    EPA has increased the tolerance level for canola, seed from 1.0 ppm
to 2.0 ppm to harmonize with the established Codex MRL of 2.0 ppm for
rapeseed. EPA has also increased the tolerance level for canola meal
from 3.0 ppm to 6.0 ppm. The tolerance level for meal was derived by
applying the maximum theoretical concentration factor of 3X for canola
meal to the canola seed tolerance of 2.0 ppm.
    EPA is also correcting minor errors in the regulations for diquat
at 40 CFR 180.226, as follows: EPA is correcting typographical errors
in the chemical name for diquat in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (a)(3). EPA
is also removing paragraph (a)(4), which reads ``There are no U.S.
registrations as of December 6, 1995.'' This statement was originally
included as a footnote to import tolerances for banana and coffee,
established in the Federal Register of March 27, 1996 (61 FR 13474)
(FRL-5348-1). The statement was inadvertently moved to a separate
paragraph in subsequent editions of the CFR. EPA is correcting this
error by removing paragraph (a)(4) and adding an updated statement
regarding U.S. registrations as a footnote to the banana and coffee
tolerances. The updated footnote to the table in paragraph (a)(3) reads
``There are no U.S. registrations as of May 26, 2010.''

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of diquat, 6,7-
dihydrodipyrido(1,2-a:2'1'-c)pyrazinediium derived from application of
the dibromide salt and calculated as the cation, in or on canola, meal
at 6.0 ppm; and canola, seed at 2.0 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this 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 section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such,

the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial
direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship
between the national government and the States or tribal governments,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132,
entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order
13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments (65 FR 67249, November 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) (Public Law 104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: May 18, 2010.
Daniel J. Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
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 180.226 is amended as follows:
    i. Alphabetically add commodities to the table in paragraph (a)(1);
    ii. Revise introductory text in paragraph (a)(2)(i);
    iii. Revise paragraph (a)(3);
    iv. Remove paragraph (a)(4); and
    v. Redesignate paragraph (a)(5) as (a)(4).
    The amendments read as follows:

Sec.  180.226  Diquat; tolerances for residues.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Commodity                        Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
Canola, meal.........................................                6.0
Canola, seed.........................................                2.0
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2)(i) Tolerances are established for residues of the herbicide
diquat (6,7 dihydrodipyrido(1,2-a:2'1'-c)pyrazinediium) (calculated as
the cation) derived from the application of the dibromide salt to
ponds, lakes, reservoirs, marshes, drainage ditches, canals, streams,
and rivers which are slow-moving or quiescent in programs of the Corp
of Engineers or other Federal or State public agencies and to ponds,
lakes and drainage ditches only where there is little or no outflow of
water and which are totally under the control of the user, in or on the
following food commodities:
* * * * *
    (3) Tolerances are established for the plant growth regulator
diquat (6,7 dihydrodipyrido(1,2-a:2'1'-c)pyrazinediium) derived from
application of the dibromide salt and calculated as the cation in or on
the following food commodites:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Commodity                        Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Banana\1\............................................               0.05
Coffee, bean, green\1\...............................               0.05
Soybean, hulls.......................................                0.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1There are no U.S. registrations as of May 26, 2010.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2010-12648 Filed 5-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 223 (Friday, November 18, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71455-71459]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29777]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R04-OAR-2009-1011-201159; FRL-9493-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; North Carolina:
Redesignation of the Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point 1997 Annual
Fine Particulate Matter Nonattainment Area to Attainment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; correcting amendment.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve a request submitted on
December 18, 2009, and supplemented on December 22, 2010, from the
State of North Carolina, through the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR), Division of Air Quality
(DAQ), to redesignate the Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) nonattainment area (hereafter the
``Greensboro Area'' or ``Area'') to attainment for the 1997 Annual
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The
Greensboro Area is comprised of Davidson and Guilford Counties in their
entireties. EPA's approval of the redesignation request is based on the
determination that the State of North Carolina has met the criteria for
redesignation to attainment set forth in the Clean Air Act (CAA or
Act), including the determination that the Greensboro Area has attained
the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS by its applicable attainment
date of April 5, 2010. Additionally, EPA is approving a revision to the
North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) to include the 1997
Annual PM2.5 maintenance plan for the Greensboro Area that
contains the new 2011 and 2021 motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs)
for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and PM2.5 for both
Davidson and Guilford Counties. This action also approves the emissions
inventory submitted with the maintenance plan. Further, EPA is
correcting a typographical error for the citation associated with a
previous adequacy finding the Agency made for the NOX and
PM2.5 MVEBs for both Davidson and Guilford Counties.

DATES: Effective Date:
    This rule will be effective December 19, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2009-1011. All documents in the docket
are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed
in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are

Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madolyn Dominy or Joel Huey,
Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Madolyn
Dominy may be reached by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via electronic mail
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Joel Huey may be reached by phone at (404)
562-9104 or via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What is the background for the actions?
II. What are the actions EPA is taking?
III. Why is EPA taking these actions?
IV. What are the effects of these actions?
V. Final Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for the actions?

    On December 18, 2009, and supplemented on December 22, 2010, the
State of North Carolina, through NC DENR, submitted a request to
redesignate the Greensboro Area to attainment for the 1997 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS and for EPA approval of the North Carolina SIP
revisions containing a maintenance plan for the Area. In an action
published on September 26, 2011 (76 FR 59345), EPA proposed approval of
North Carolina's plan for maintaining the 1997 Annual PM2.5
NAAQS, including the emissions inventory submitted pursuant to CAA
section 172(c)(3) and the NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs for
Davidson and Guilford Counties in the Greensboro Area as contained in
the maintenance plan. At that time, EPA also proposed to approve the
redesignation of the Greensboro Area to attainment. Additional
background for today's action is set forth in EPA's September 26, 2011,
proposal.
    The MVEBs, specified in kilograms per year (kg/yr), included in the
maintenance plan are as follows:

                     Table 1--Davidson County MVEBs
                                 [kg/yr]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Conformity MVEB                     2011         2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX...........................................    4,086,413    2,148,938
PM2.5.........................................      153,313      153,313
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     Table 2--Guilford County MVEBs
                                [kg/year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Conformity MVEB                     2011         2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX...........................................   11,133,605    6,309,650
PM2.5.........................................      421,841      421,841
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its September 26, 2011, proposed action, EPA noted that the
adequacy public comment period on these MVEBs (as contained in North
Carolina's submittal) began on November 23, 2010, and closed on
December 23, 2010. No comments were received during the public comment
period. Thus, EPA deemed the new MVEBs for Davidson and Guilford
Counties in the Greensboro Area adequate for the purposes of
transportation conformity on May 2, 2011 (76 FR 24474).
    As stated in the September 26, 2011, proposal, this redesignation
addresses the Greensboro Area's status solely with respect to the 1997
Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, for which designations were finalized on
January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944), and as supplemented on April 14, 2005 (70
FR 19844).
    EPA reviewed PM2.5 monitoring data from ambient
PM2.5 monitoring stations in the Greensboro Area for the
PM2.5 seasons from 2007-2009. These data have been quality-
assured and are recorded in Air Quality System (AQS). The annual
arithmetic mean PM2.5 concentrations for 2006-2009 and the
3-year averages of these values (i.e., design values) are summarized in
Table 3. EPA has reviewed more recent data which indicate that the
Greensboro Area continues to attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
The design values for 2007-2009 and 2008-2010 are also included in
Table 3 and demonstrate that the Greensboro Area continues to meet the
PM2.5 NAAQS and that the ambient concentrations of
PM2.5 are continuing to decrease in the Area. Preliminary
monitoring data for the 2011 PM2.5 season indicate that the
Area is continuing to attain the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS
based on data from 2009-2011. These preliminary data are available in
the docket for today's action although they are not yet certified.

                       Table 3--Design Value Concentrations for the Greensboro 1997 Annual PM2.5. Nonattainment Area ([mu]g/m\3\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Annual average PM2.5 concentrations ([mu]g/m\3\)
               County                        Site name          Monitor ID   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2006          2007          2008          2009             2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Davidson............................  Lexington.............     37-057-0002        15.13         14.64         13.61         10.61                12.1
Guilford............................  Mendenhall............     37-081-0013         14.5         13.14         11.41          9.31                10.4
Guilford............................  Colfax................     37-035-0014          N/A           N/A         12.32          9.63                10.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Three-year PM2.5 design values ([mu]g/m\3\)
                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     2006-2008
                                                     2007-2009                  2008-2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Davidson............................  Lexington.............     37-057-0002             14.5
                                                       13.0                          12.1
Guilford............................  Mendenhall............     37-081-0013             13.0
                                                       11.3                          10.4
Guilford............................  Colfax................     37-035-0014              N/A
                                                        N/A                          10.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What are the actions EPA is taking?

    In today's rulemaking, EPA is approving: (1) North Carolina's
emissions inventory which was submitted pursuant to CAA section
172(c)(3); (2) North Carolina's 1997 Annual PM2.5
maintenance plan (such approval being one of the CAA criteria for
redesignation to attainment status) for the Greensboro Area, including
MVEBs; and (3) North Carolina's redesignation request to change the
legal designation of the Greensboro Area from nonattainment to
attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The maintenance
plan is designed to demonstrate that the Greensboro Area will continue
to attain the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS through 2021. EPA's
approval of the redesignation request is based on EPA's determination
that the Greensboro Area meets the criteria for redesignation set forth
in CAA, sections 107(d)(3)(E) and 175A, including EPA's

determination that the Greensboro Area has attained the 1997 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA's analyses of North Carolina's
redesignation request, emissions inventory, and maintenance plan are
described in detail in the September 26, 2011, proposed rule (76 FR
59345).
    Consistent with the CAA, the maintenance plan that EPA is approving
also includes 2011 and 2021 MVEBs for NOX and
PM2.5 for Davidson and Guilford Counties in the Greensboro
Area. In this action, EPA is approving these NOX and
PM2.5 MVEBs for the purposes of transportation conformity.
For required regional emissions analysis years beyond 2011 and prior to
2021, the applicable budgets will be the new 2011 MVEBs. For required
regional emissions analysis years that involve 2021 or beyond, the
applicable budgets will be the new 2021 MVEBs.
    EPA is also correcting an inadvertent typographical error for the
citation (in EPA's September 26, 2011, proposed rulemaking) associated
with EPA's adequacy finding for the NOX and PM2.5
MVEB for Davidson and Guilford Counties. In EPA's September 26, 2011,
proposed rulemaking, EPA provides the citation for the adequacy
determination for the NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs as 76
FR 24472 in the last paragraph of the section entitled ``VIII. What Is
the Status of EPA's Adequacy Determination for the Proposed
PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for 2011 and 2021 for the
Greensboro Area?'' and in the second to last paragraph in the section
entitled ``X. Proposed Actions on the Redesignation Request and
Maintenance Plan SIP Revisions Including Approval of the
PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for 2011 and 2021 for the
Greensboro Area.'' The correct citation is 76 FR 24474. Through this
action, EPA is making this correction.

III. Why is EPA taking these actions?

    EPA has determined that the Greensboro Area has attained the 1997
Annual PM2.5 NAAQS and has also determined that all other
criteria for the redesignation of the Greensboro Area from
nonattainment to attainment of the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS
have been met. See CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). One of those requirements
is that the Greensboro Area has an approved plan demonstrating
maintenance of the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is also
taking final action to approve the maintenance plan for the Greensboro
Area as meeting the requirements of sections 175A and 107(d)(3)(E) of
the CAA. In addition, EPA is approving the emissions inventory as
meeting the requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. Finally, EPA
is approving the new NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs for the
years 2011 and 2021 as contained in North Carolina's maintenance plan
for Davidson and Guilford Counties in the Greensboro Area because these
MVEBs are consistent with maintenance of the 1997 Annual
PM2.5 standard in the Greensboro Area. The detailed
rationale for EPA's findings and actions are set forth in the proposed
rulemaking and in other discussion in this final rulemaking.

IV. What are the effects of these actions?

    Approval of the redesignation request changes the legal designation
of Davidson and Guilford Counties in their entireties from
nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
EPA is modifying the regulatory table in 40 CFR 81.334 to reflect a
designation of attainment for these full and partial counties. EPA is
also approving, as a revision to the North Carolina SIP, North
Carolina's plan for maintaining the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS
in the Greensboro Area through 2021. The maintenance plan includes
contingency measures to remedy possible future violations of the 1997
Annual PM2.5 NAAQS and establishes NOX and
PM2.5 MVEBs for the years 2011 and 2021 for the Greensboro
Area. Additionally, this action approves the emissions inventory for
the Greensboro Area pursuant to section 172(c)(3) of the CAA.

V. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve the redesignation and change
the legal designation of Davidson and Guilford Counties in their
entireties from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is also approving into the North Carolina
SIP the 1997Annual PM2.5 maintenance plan for the Greensboro
Area. For Davidson County, the maintenance plan includes the new MVEBs
of 4,086,413 kg/yr of NOX and 153,313 kg/yr of
PM2.5 for 2011 and 2,148,938 kg/yr of NOX and
153,313 kg/yr of PM2.5 for 2021. Further, for Guilford
County, the maintenance plan includes the new MVEBs of 11,133,605 kg/yr
of NOX and 421,841 kg/yr of PM2.5 for 2011 and
6,309,650 kg/yr of NOX and 421,841 kg/yr of PM2.5
for 2021.
    Additionally, EPA is approving the 2008 emissions inventory for the
Greensboro Area pursuant to section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. In a previous
action, EPA found the new Greensboro Area MVEBs adequate for the
purposes of transportation conformity (76 FR 24474, May 2, 2011).
Within 24 months from the effective date of EPA's adequacy finding for
the MVEBs, the transportation partners are required to demonstrate
conformity to the new PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs
pursuant to 40 CFR 93.104(e).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of the maintenance plan under CAA section
107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of geographical area
and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources
beyond those required by state law. A redesignation to attainment does
not in and of itself impose any new requirements, but rather results in
the application of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that
have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions
of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40
CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to
approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For these reasons, these actions:
     Are not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not an economically significant regulatory action
based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not significant regulatory action subject to Executive
Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National

Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with
the CAA; and
     Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this final rule does not have Tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by January 17, 2012. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks.

    Dated: November 7, 2011.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart II--North Carolina

0
2. Section 52.1770(e) is amended by adding new entries ``1997 Annual
PM2.5 Maintenance Plan for the Greensboro, North Carolina
Area (Davidson and Guilford Counties)'' and ``1997 Annual
PM2.5 Maintenance Plan for the Greensboro, North Carolina
Area--MOVES Update'' at the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                              EPA-Approved North Carolina Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    State effective    EPA approval
             Provision                    date             date                Federal Register citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
1997 Annual PM2.5 Maintenance Plan         12/18/09         11/18/11  [Insert citation of publication].
 for the Greensboro, North
 Carolina Area (Davidson and
 Guilford Counties).
1997 Annual PM2.5 Maintenance Plan         12/22/10         11/18/11  [Insert citation of publication].
 for the Greensboro, North
 Carolina Area--MOVES Update.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 81--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. In Sec.  81.334, the table entitled ``North Carolina--
PM2.5 (Annual NAAQS)'' is amended under ``Greensboro-Winston
Salem-High Point, NC'' by revising the entries for ``Davidson County''
and ``Guilford County'' to read as follows:

Sec.  81.334  North Carolina.

* * * * *

                  North Carolina--PM2.5--(Annual NAAQS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Designation \a\
       Designated area       -------------------------------------------
                                    Date \1\                Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point, NC:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Davidson County.............  This action is        Attainment.
                               effective 11/18/11.
Guilford County.............  This action is        Attainment.
                               effective 11/18/11.

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as
  otherwise specified.
\1\ This date is 90 days after January 5, 2005, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-29777 Filed 11-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P