[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 138 (Friday, July 17, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43627-43630]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15450]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-89305; File No. SR-FINRA-2020-011]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To
Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment
No. 1, To Address Broker-Dealers With a Significant History of
Misconduct

July 13, 2020.

I. Introduction

    On April 3, 2020, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend FINRA's rules to help
further address the issue of broker-dealers with a significant history
of misconduct and the firms that employ them. The proposed rule change
was published for comment in the Federal Register on April 14, 2020.\3\
On May 27, 2020, FINRA consented to an extension of the time period in
which the Commission must approve the proposed rule change, disapprove
the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether
to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change to July 13, 2020.\4\
On July 2, 2020, FINRA responded to the comment letters received in
response to the Notice and filed an amendment to the proposed rule
change (``Amendment No. 1'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Exchange Act Release No. 88600 (Apr. 8, 2020), 85 FR
20745 (Apr. 14, 2020) (File No. SR-FINRA-2020-011) (``Notice'').
    \4\ See letter from Michael Garawski, Associate General Counsel,
Office of General Counsel, FINRA, to Daniel Fisher, Branch Chief,
Division of Trading and Markets, U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, dated May 27, 2020.
    \5\ See letter from Michael Garawski, Associate General Counsel,
Office of General Counsel, FINRA, to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary,
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, dated July 2, 2020 (``FINRA
Letter''). The FINRA Letter is available at the Commission's website
at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-finra-2020-011/srfinra2020011-7399761-219028.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is publishing this order pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act \6\ to solicit comments on Amendment
No. 1 from interested persons and to institute proceedings to determine
whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, as modified
by Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Institution of proceedings does not indicate that the Commission
has reached any conclusions with respect to the proposed rule change,
nor does it mean that the Commission will ultimately disapprove the
proposed rule change. Rather, as discussed below, the Commission seeks
additional input from interested parties on the changes to the proposed
rule change, as set forth in Amendment No. 1.

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

Background

    FINRA's proposed rule change would: (1) Amend the FINRA Rule 9200
Series (Disciplinary Proceedings) and the 9300 Series (Review of
Disciplinary Proceedings by National Adjudicatory Council and FINRA
Board; Application for SEC Review) to allow a hearing officer to impose
conditions or restrictions on the activities of a respondent member
broker-dealer or respondent associated person, and require the member
broker-dealer employing a respondent associated person to adopt
heightened supervisory procedures for such associated person, when a
disciplinary matter is appealed to the National Adjudicatory Council
(``NAC'') or called for NAC review; (2) amend the FINRA Rule 9520
Series (Eligibility Proceedings) to require member broker-dealers to
adopt heightened supervisory procedures for statutorily disqualified
associated persons during the period a statutory disqualification
eligibility request is under review by FINRA; (3) amend FINRA Rule 8312
(FINRA BrokerCheck Disclosure) to require the disclosure through FINRA
BrokerCheck of the status of a member broker-dealer as a ``taping
firm'' under FINRA Rule 3170 (Tape Recording of Registered Persons by
Certain Firms); and (4) amend the FINRA Rule 1000 Series (Member
Application and Associated Person Registration) to require a member
broker-dealer to submit a written request to FINRA's Department of
Member Regulation, through the Membership Application Group (``MAP
Group''), seeking a materiality consultation and approval of a
continuing membership application, if required, when a natural person
that has, in the prior five years, one or more ``final criminal
matters'' or two or more ``specified risk events'' seeks to become an
owner, control person, principal or registered person of the member
broker-dealer.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Notice at 20745.
    The proposed rule change would impact all members, including
members that are funding portals or have elected to be treated as
capital acquisition brokers (``CABs''), given that the funding
portal rule set incorporates the Rule 9200 Series and Rule 9300
Series and Rule 9556 by reference, and the CAB rule set incorporates
Rules 1011, 1017 and 8312 and the Rule 9200 Series, Rule 9300 Series
and Rule 9500 Series by reference. In addition, FINRA is proposing
corresponding amendments to CAB Rule 111, to reflect that a CAB
would be subject to IM-1011-3, and amendments to Funding Portal Rule
900(b) to require heightened supervision during the time an
eligibility request is pending. See Notice at note 61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule Change to the FINRA Rule 9200 Series (Disciplinary
Proceedings) and the 9300 Series (Review of Disciplinary Proceeding by
National Adjudicatory Council and FINRA Board; Application for SEC
Review)

    Currently, FINRA rules require that when a hearing panel or hearing
officer decision is on appeal or review before the NAC, any sanctions
imposed by the hearing panel or hearing officer decision, including
bars and expulsions, are automatically stayed and not enforced against
the respondent during the pendency of the appeal or review
proceeding.\8\ In turn, the filing of an application for Commission
review stays the effectiveness of any sanction, other than a bar or an
expulsion, imposed in a decision constituting a final FINRA
disciplinary action.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See FINRA Rules 9311(b) and 9312(b). In contrast, an appeal
to the NAC or a call for NAC review does not stay a decision, or
that part of a decision, that imposes a permanent cease and desist
order. See FINRA Rules 9311(b) and 9312(b).
    \9\ See FINRA Rule 9370(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Notice, FINRA expressed concern about customers who could
engage in securities transactions with

disciplined respondents during the pendency of an appeal from, or a NAC
review of, a hearing panel or hearing officer disciplinary
decision.\10\ According to FINRA, ``authorizing Hearing Officers to
impose conditions or restrictions during the period an appeal or review
proceeding is pending would allow FINRA to target the demonstrated bad
conduct of a respondent during the pendency of an appeal or review and
add an interim layer of investor protection while the appellate review
of the disciplinary proceeding remains pending.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Notice at 20746.
    \11\ See Notice at 20748.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, FINRA proposed amendments to its Rule 9200 Series and
Rule 9300 Series that would authorize hearing officers to impose
conditions or restrictions on disciplined respondents and require
broker-dealers to adopt heightened supervision plans concerning their
associated persons who are the disciplined respondents.\12\ The
proposed rule change would require a heightened supervision plan to be
reasonably designed and tailored to include specific supervisory
policies and procedures that address the violations found and be
reasonably designed to prevent or detect a reoccurrence of the
violations.\13\ The proposed rule change would also establish a process
for an expedited review by the Review Subcommittee of the NAC of any
such conditions or restrictions imposed.\14\ Specifically, proposed
Rule 9285(a) would provide that the hearing officer who participated in
an underlying disciplinary proceeding and found that a respondent
violated a statute or rule provision which is subsequently appealed to
the NAC or called for NAC review, may impose conditions or restrictions
on the activities of the respondent during the appeal as the hearing
officer considers reasonably necessary for the purpose of preventing
customer harm.\15\ Under the proposed rule change, the conditions or
restrictions imposed by a hearing officer would remain in place until
FINRA's final decision takes effect and all appeals are exhausted.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Notice at 20746.
    \13\ See Notice at 20748.
    \14\ See Notice at 20746.
    \15\ See Notice at 20747. Additionally, the Notice sets forth in
greater detail how this process would operate.
    \16\ See Notice at 20748. The proposed rule change would also
amend Rule 9556 to grant FINRA the authority to bring an expedited
proceeding against a respondent that fails to comply with conditions
and restrictions imposed pursuant to proposed Rule 9285 that could
result in a suspension or cancellation of membership or suspension
or bar from associating with any FINRA member. See Notice at 20749.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule Change to the FINRA Rule 9520 Series (Eligibility
Proceedings)

    The FINRA Rule 9520 Series sets forth rules governing eligibility
proceedings, in which FINRA evaluates whether to allow a member, person
associated with a member, potential member or potential associated
person subject to a statutory disqualification to enter or remain in
the securities industry.\17\ These eligibility proceedings require a
broker-dealer to propose a written plan of heightened supervision of
the statutorily disqualified associated person that would become
effective upon FINRA's approval of the broker-dealer's application to
associate with the statutorily disqualified person.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Notice at 20750.
    \18\ See Notice at 20750.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would amend FINRA Rule 9522 to require a
member broker-dealer that files an application to continue associating
with a disqualified person under FINRA Rule 9522(a)(3) or Rule
9522(b)(1)(B) to include an interim plan of heightened supervision that
would be in effect throughout the entirety of the application review
process.\19\ The proposed rule change would delineate the circumstances
under which a statutorily disqualified person may remain associated
with a member broker-dealer while FINRA is reviewing the
application.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Notice at 20749.
    \20\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule Change to FINRA Rule 8312 (FINRA BrokerCheck Disclosure)

    FINRA Rule 8312 governs the information FINRA releases to the
public through its BrokerCheck system. Currently, FINRA Rule 8312(b)
requires that FINRA release information about, among other things,
whether a particular member broker-dealer is subject to the provisions
of FINRA Rule 3170 (the ``Taping Rule''), but only in response to
telephonic inquiries via the BrokerCheck toll-free telephone
listing.\21\ The proposed rule change would remove the requirement that
FINRA inform the public that a broker-dealer is subject to the Taping
Rule only in response to telephonic inquiry via the BrokerCheck toll-
free telephone listing.\22\ Specifically, proposed FINRA Rule 8312(b)
would require FINRA to release through BrokerCheck information as to
whether a particular broker-dealer is subject to the Taping Rule (a
``taping firm'').\23\ FINRA believes that broadening the disclosure
through BrokerCheck of the status of a broker-dealer as a taping firm
would help inform more investors of the heightened procedures required
of the broker-dealer, which may incentivize investors to research more
carefully the background of an associated person associated with the
taping firm.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See FINRA Rule 8312(b). The Taping Rule is designed to help
ensure that a broker-dealer with a significant number of registered
persons that previously were employed by ``disciplined firms'' has
specified supervisory procedures in place to prevent fraudulent and
improper sales practices or customer harm. See Notice at 20751.
Under the Taping Rule, a broker-dealer with a specified percentage
of registered persons who have been associated with disciplined
firms in a registered capacity in the last three years is designated
as a ``taping firm.'' See FINRA Rule 3170.
    \22\ See Notice at 20751.
    \23\ See id.
    \24\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule Change to FINRA Rule 1000 Series (Member Application and
Associated Person Registration)

    The FINRA Rule 1000 Series govern, among other things, FINRA's
membership proceedings. Currently, a member broker-dealer is permitted
(subject to exceptions) to expand its business under the safe-harbor
set forth in IM-1011-1 without the filing and prior approval of a
continuing membership application.\25\ For example, under the existing
parameters of this safe harbor, a broker-dealer could hire an
associated person even if he or she has a significant history of
misconduct.\26\ The proposed rule change would limit the application of
the safe harbor by imposing additional obligations on a member broker-
dealer when a natural person who has, in the prior five years, either
one or more ``final criminal matters'' or two or more ``specified risk
events'' seeks to become an owner, control person, principal or
registered person of the broker-dealer.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Notice at 20752.
    \26\ See id.
    Currently, none of the safe harbor's parameters relates to the
history of a broker-dealer's associated persons. However, based on
its review of studies indicating the predictability of future
regulatory-related events for associated persons with a history of
past regulatory-related events, FINRA is concerned about instances
where a broker-dealer hires associated persons with a significant
history of misconduct within the safe-harbor parameters, thus
avoiding prior consultation or review by FINRA. FINRA believes there
are instances in which hiring of an associated person with a
significant history of misconduct should be considered a material
change in business operations. See Notice at 20752.
    \27\ See Notice at 20752. The proposed rule change would also
adopt definitions of ``final criminal matter'' and ``specified risk
event.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, when a natural person seeking to become an owner,
control person, principal or registered person of a member broker-
dealer has, in the prior

five years, one or more ``final criminal matters'' or two or more
``specified risk events,'' proposed Rule 1017(a)(7) would require a
member broker-dealer to either: (1) File a continuing membership
application or (2) submit a written request seeking a materiality
consultation for the contemplated activity with the MAP Group.\28\ If
the broker-dealer seeks a materiality consultation, the MAP Group would
consider, among other things, whether the ``final criminal matters'' or
``specified risk events'' are customer-related; whether they represent
discrete actions or are based on the same underlying conduct; the
anticipated activities of the person; the disciplinary history,
experience and background of the proposed supervisor, if applicable;
the disciplinary history, supervisory practices, standards, systems and
internal controls of the member firm and whether they are reasonably
designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities laws and
regulations and FINRA rules.\29\ Where FINRA determines that a
contemplated change is material, FINRA would instruct the broker-dealer
to file a continuing membership application if it intends to proceed
with such change. Proposed Rule 1017(a)(7) would establish that the
safe-harbor for business expansions in IM-1011-1 would not be available
to a member broker-dealer when a materiality consultation is
required.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Notice at 20752 and 20753.
    \29\ See Notice at 20753.
    \30\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the proposed rule change would adopt a corresponding
change to IM-1011-3 (Business Expansions and Persons with Specified
Risk Events) to specify that the safe-harbor for business expansions in
IM-1011-1 would not be available to any broker-dealer seeking to add a
natural person who: (i) Has, in the prior five years, one or more
``final criminal matters'' or two or more ``specified risk events'' and
(ii) seeks to become an owner, control person, principal or registered
person of the member.\31\ In those circumstances, proposed IM-1011-3
would provide that if the broker-dealer is not otherwise required to
file a continuing membership application, it must comply with the
requirements of proposed FINRA Rule 1017(a)(7).\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See id.
    \32\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has received five comment letters on the proposed
rule change. In response to comments, FINRA submitted the FINRA Letter
and Amendment No. 1, amending the proposed rule change as described
below.

III. Description of Amendment No. 1

    In the initial filing of the proposed rule change, proposed FINRA
Rule 1011(h) defined the term ``final criminal matter'' to mean ``a
final criminal matter that resulted in a conviction of, or guilty plea
or nolo contendere (no contest) by, a person that is disclosed, or was
required to be disclosed, on the applicable Uniform Registration
Forms.'' Proposed FINRA Rule 1011(p) defined the term ``specified risk
event'' to mean any one of several specified events ``that are
disclosed, or are or were required to be disclosed, on an applicable
Uniform Registration Form.'' The ``was required to be disclosed''
language in the proposed ``final criminal matter'' definition differs
in substance from the ``are or were required to be disclosed'' language
in the proposed ``specified risk event'' definition.\33\ In response to
comments, FINRA agreed with some commenters that ``this difference
should be eliminated, and that both definitions should include
disclosures that are required if the member firm and person proceed
with the contemplated change, including disclosures that are required
on Uniform Registration Forms that have not yet been executed.'' Thus,
FINRA amended proposed FINRA Rule 1011(h) to include in the definition
of ``final criminal matter'' a relevant criminal event that ``is or
was'' required to be disclosed on a Uniform Registration Form, and to
make some grammar- and syntax-related modifications.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See id.
    \34\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also in response to comments, FINRA amended proposed FINRA Rule
1017(a)(7) to define ``owner'' and ``control person'' for purposes of
that proposed rule (and, by extension, IM-1011-3).\35\ Specifically,
Amendment No. 1 would modify proposed FINRA Rule 1017(a)(7) to provide
that, ``for purposes of FINRA Rule 1017(a)(7): (i) the term `owner' has
the same meaning as `direct owner' on Form BD Schedule A and `indirect
owner' on Form BD Schedule B; and (ii) that `control person' means a
person who would have `control' as defined on Form BD.'' \36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See id.
    \36\ See id. (stating that ``[d]efining `control person' by
reference to the Form BD definition of `control' means that the term
would not be defined with reference to the term `controlling' as
defined in the FINRA By-Laws, Art. I(h).'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove File No.
SR-FINRA-2020-011 and Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be approved or disapproved.\37\ Institution of
proceedings is appropriate at this time in view of the legal and policy
issues raised by the proposed rule change. As noted above, institution
of proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has reached any
conclusions with respect to any of the issues involved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act,\38\ the
Commission is providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under
consideration. The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for
additional analysis and input concerning whether the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the Exchange
Act and the rules thereunder, in particular Section 15A(b)(6) of the
Exchange Act, which requires, among other things, that FINRA rules must
be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See id.
    \39\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the ``burden to
demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with the
[Exchange Act] and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is
on the [SRO] that proposed the rule change.'' \40\ The description of a
proposed rule change, its purpose and operation, its effect, and a
legal analysis of its consistency with applicable requirements must all
be sufficiently detailed and specific to support an affirmative
Commission finding,\41\ and any failure of an SRO to provide this
information may result in the Commission not having a sufficient basis
to make an affirmative finding that a proposed rule change is
consistent with the Exchange Act and the applicable rules and
regulations.\42\ For the reasons discussed above, the Commission
believes it is appropriate to institute proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act to allow for additional consideration
of the issues raised by the proposed rule

change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, as it determines whether the
proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Rule 700(b)(3), Commission Rules of Practice, 17 CFR
201.700(b)(3).
    \41\ See id.
    \42\ See id.
    \43\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the
issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have
with the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1. In
particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested
persons concerning whether the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Exchange
Act, or any other provision of the Exchange Act, rules, and regulations
thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to
approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral
presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will
consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to
make an oral presentation.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act, as amended by the
Securities Acts Amendments of 1975, Public Law 94-29, 89 Stat. 97
(1975), grants the Commission flexibility to determine what type of
proceeding--either oral or notice and opportunity for written
comments--is appropriate for consideration of a particular proposed
rule change by a self-regulatory organization. See Securities Acts
Amendments of 1975, Report of the Senate Committee on Banking,
Housing and Urban Affairs to Accompany S. 249, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th
Cong., 1st Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, should be approved or disapproved by August 3, 2020.
Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's
submission must file that rebuttal by August 7, 2020.
    Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-FINRA-2020-011 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-FINRA-2020-011. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, between the Commission and any person, other than
those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. All
comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting
comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal
identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-FINRA-2020-011 and should be
submitted on or before August 3, 2020. Rebuttal comments should be
submitted by August 7, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12); 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-15450 Filed 7-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 153 (Thursday, August 10, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37305-37307]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16821]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0267; FRL-9965-73-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
District of Columbia; Regional Haze Five-Year Progress Report State
Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a
revision to the District of Columbia state implementation plan (SIP)
submitted by the District of Columbia (the District) through the
District of Columbia Department of Energy and Environment (DOEE). The
District's SIP submittal addresses requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) and EPA's rules that require states to submit periodic reports
describing progress towards reasonable progress goals (RPGs)
established for regional haze and a determination of the adequacy of
the state's existing SIP addressing regional haze (regional haze SIP).
No comments were received in response to EPA's proposed rulemaking
action published on May 30, 2017. EPA is approving the District's SIP
submittal because EPA has determined that it satisfactorily addresses
the progress report and adequacy determination requirements for the
first implementation period for regional haze.

DATES: This final rule is effective on September 11, 2017.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0267. 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, 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 through
https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in
the For Further Information Contact section for additional availability
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Calcinore,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On May 30, 2017 (82 FR 24617), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) for the District. In the NPRM, EPA proposed approval
of the District's regional haze five-year progress report SIP, a report
on progress towards RPGs, for the first implementation period. This
progress report SIP and accompanying cover letter also included a
determination that the District's existing regional haze SIP requires
no substantive revision to achieve the established regional haze
visibility improvement and emissions reduction goals for 2018. No
comments were received in response to EPA's proposed rulemaking notice.
    States were required to submit, in the form of a SIP revision, a
progress report every five years that evaluates progress towards the
RPGs for each mandatory Class I Federal area within the state and in
each mandatory Class I Federal area outside the state which may be
affected by emissions from within the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(g). In
addition, the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(h) require states to
submit, at the same time as the 40 CFR 51.308(g) progress report, a
determination of the adequacy of the state's existing regional haze
SIP. On October 27, 2011, DOEE submitted its first regional haze SIP in
accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 as they existed at
the time. The progress report SIP revision was submitted by DOEE on
March 2, 2016 and EPA finds that it satisfies the requirements of 40
CFR 51.308(g) and (h).

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    On March 2, 2016, the District submitted a SIP revision to address
progress made towards RPGs. This progress report SIP submittal also
included a determination of the adequacy of the District's existing
regional haze SIP.
    The provisions in 40 CFR 51.308(g) require a progress report SIP to
address seven elements. EPA finds that the District's progress report
SIP addressed each element under 40 CFR 51.308(g). The seven elements
and EPA's conclusion are briefly summarized later in this preamble;
however, the detailed rationale for EPA's action is explained in the
NPR and will not be restated here.
    The provisions in 40 CFR 51.308(g) require progress reports SIPs to
include a description of the status of measures in the approved
regional haze SIP; a summary of emissions reductions achieved; an
assessment of visibility conditions for each Class I area in the state;
an analysis of changes in emissions from source and activities within
the state; an assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic
emissions within or outside the state that have limited or impeded
progress in Class I areas impacted by the state's sources; an
assessment of the sufficiency of the approved regional haze SIP; and a
review of the state's visibility monitoring strategy. As explained in
detail in the NPR, EPA finds that the District's progress report SIP
submittal addressed each element and has therefore satisfied the
requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(g).

    In addition, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are required to
submit, at the same time as the progress report submission, a
determination of the adequacy of their existing regional haze SIP and
to take one of four possible actions based on information in the
progress report. One possible action is submission of a negative
declaration to EPA that no further substantive revision to the state's
existing regional haze SIP is needed. In its progress report, the
District submitted a negative declaration that it had determined that
the existing regional haze SIP requires no substantive revision to
achieve the RPGs for Class I areas. As explained in detail in the NPR,
EPA concludes that the District adequately addressed 40 CFR 51.308(h)
because decreasing emissions of visibility impairing pollutants, lack
of Class I area impact from pollution sources within the District,\1\
and progress of regional Class I areas near the District towards RPGs
for 2018 indicate that no further revisions to the District's SIP are
necessary for this first regional haze implementation period.
Therefore, EPA concludes that the District's progress report SIP meets
the requirements of 40 CFR 52.308(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 77 FR 5191, February 2, 2012 (discussing the District's
lack of impacts on Class I areas).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Action

    In accordance with section 110 of the CAA, EPA is approving the
District's regional haze five-year progress report SIP revision,
submitted on March 2, 2016, as meeting the applicable regional haze
requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is 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.);
     does 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);
     does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is 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
     does 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 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.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    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).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    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 October 10, 2017. 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 to approve the District's regional haze five-year
progress report SIP revision may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 21, 2017.
Cecil Rodrigues,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart J--District of Columbia

0
2. In Sec.  52.470, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an
entry entitled ``Regional Haze Five-Year Progress Report'' to the end
of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.470  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name of non-regulatory SIP     Applicable geographic         State        EPA approval         Additional
           revision                       area            submittal date        date             explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Regional Haze Five-Year        District of Columbia.....        03/02/16  08/10/17 [Insert  Addresses
 Progress Report.                                                          Federal           requirements of 40
                                                                           Register          CFR 51.308(g) and
                                                                           citation].        (h) for Regional
                                                                                Haze Five-Year
                                                                                Progress Report.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2017-16821 Filed 8-9-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 144 (Friday, July 28, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35109-35115]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15743]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0064; FRL-9962-96]

Fenamidone; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

DATES: This regulation is effective July 28, 2017. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before September 26, 2017,
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-2016-0064, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0064 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 26, 2017. 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-2016-0064, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of May 19, 2016 (81 FR 31581) (FRL-9946-
02), 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
5E8434) by IR-4, Rutgers University, 500 College Rd. East, Suite 201 W,
Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.579 be
amended by establishing tolerances for residues of fenamidone (4H-
imidazol-4-one, 3,5-dihydro-5-methyl-2-(methylthio)-5-phenyl-3-
(phenylamino)-, (S)-) in or on the following raw agricultural
commodities: Basil, fresh leaves at 30 parts per million (ppm); and
basil, dried leaves at 200 ppm. Additionally, tolerances were proposed
for the crops in the proposed crop subgroup 4-15A, leafy greens
subgroup at 60.0 ppm, including amaranth, Chinese; amaranth, leafy;
aster, Indian; blackjack; cat's whiskers; chervil, fresh leaves; cham-
chwi; cham-na-mul; chipilin; chrysanthemum, garland; cilantro, fresh
leaves; corn salad; cosmos; dandelion; dang-gwi; dillweed; dock; dol-
nam-mul; ebolo; endive; escarole; fameflower; feather cockscomb; good
king henry; huauzontle; jute, leaves; lettuce, bitter; lettuce, head;
lettuce, leaf; orach; parsley, fresh leaves; plantain, buckhorn;
primrose, English; purslane, garden; purslane, winter; radicchio;
spinach; spinach, malabar; spinach, New Zealand; spinach, tanier; swiss
chard; and violet, Chinese; the crops in the proposed crop subgroup 4-
15B, Brassica leafy greens subgroup at 55 ppm, including arugula;
broccoli raab; broccoli, Chinese; cabbage, Abyssinian; cabbage,
seakale; Chinese cabbage, bok choy; collards; cress, garden; cress,
upland; hanover salad; kale; maca; mizuna; mustard greens; radish,
leaves; rape greens; rocket, wild; shepherd's purse; turnip greens; and
watercress; the crops in the proposed crop subgroup 22B, leaf petiole
vegetable subgroup at 60 ppm, including cardoon; celery; celery,
Chinese; fuki; rhubarb; udo; and zuiki; the crops in the proposed crop
group 5-15 (Brassica head and stem vegetable) at 5.0 ppm, including
broccoli; brussels sprouts; cabbage; cabbage, Chinese, napa; and
cauliflower; cottonseed subgroup 20C at 0.02 ppm; kohlrabi at 5.0 ppm;
celtuce at 60 ppm; and fennel, Florence, fresh leaves and stalk at 60
ppm. That petition also requested that the following existing
tolerances be removed after the petitioned-for tolerances are issued
since they would be superseded by the new tolerances: Brassica, head
and stem, subgroup 5A at 5.0 ppm; Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B
at 55 ppm; cotton, undelinted seed at 0.02 ppm; cilantro, leaves at 60
ppm; and vegetable, leafy, except Brassica, group 4 at 60 ppm. That
document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Bayer
CropScience, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. No comments were received on the notice of filing.
    EPA is establishing tolerances similar to those requested by the
petitioner (the leafy greens crop subgroup 4-15A; the Brassica leafy
greens crop subgroup 4-15B; the leaf petiole vegetable crop subgroup
22B; and the Brassica head and stem vegetable crop group 5-15), except
that due to the recent establishment of the new crop groups, the Agency
is referencing the current crop groups. Additionally, in order to
harmonize with Canada, the Agency is establishing a single tolerance
for leafy vegetable crop group 4-16 rather than two separate tolerances
for each of the crop subgroup 4-16A and 4-16B.

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 fenamidone including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with fenamidone 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.

    The target organs in fenamidone are the liver in mice, rats and
dogs, and the thyroid in rats. Liver effects include liver weight
increases, liver enlargement, and histopathological observation.
Enlarged thyroid, increased thyroid weights with an increase incidence
of a slight, diffuse follicular hypertrophy and/or hyperplasia were
observed in rats of both sexes in the chronic toxicity study.
    In the acute neurotoxicity study in rats, clinical signs included
staining of the anogenital region, mucous in the feces, hunched
posture, and unsteady gait. In the subchronic neurotoxicity study in
rats, marginal decreases in brain weights were observed only in high
dose males. Additionally, decreased brain weight occurred in the rat
reproduction study. In a developmental neurotoxicity study in Wistar
rats, no neurobehavioral effects and no neuropathological changes were
observed at any dose in the offspring, but decreased body weight was
observed during pre- and post-weaning.
    Fenamidone did not demonstrate qualitative or quantitative
increased susceptibility in the rat or rabbit developmental toxicity
studies or the 2-generation rat reproduction study. There were no
developmental effects up to the highest dose tested and in the presence
of maternal toxicity in rats and rabbits. In the reproduction study in
rats, decreased absolute brain weight in F2 female pups occurred at the
same dose levels as decreased absolute brain weight in F1 parental
females; there were no effects on fertility or other measured
reproductive parameters. Immunosuppression was demonstrated at the
highest dose tested in the immunotoxicity study; however, the existing
risk assessment points of departure are lower and are protective of
this potential effect.
    Fenamidone is classified as ``not likely to be a human carcinogen''
by all relevant routes of exposure. All mutagenicity studies were
negative for both the parent and plant metabolites (RPA 412636, RPA
412708, and RPA 410193), except the parent induced mutant colonies at
the tk locus and increased chromosomal aberrations in human peripheral
blood.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by fenamidone as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at
http:www.regulations.gov in the document titled ``Fenamidone: Human
Health Risk Assessment to Support the Section (3) Registration on Basil
and Crop Group Expansion on Brassica Head and Stem Vegetables; Leafy
greens; Brassica Leafy Greens; and Cottonseed'' on page 33 in docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0064.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for fenamidone used for
human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.

  Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Fenamidone for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Point of departure
        Exposure/scenario            and uncertainty/     RfD, PAD, LOC for     Study and toxicological effects
                                      safety factors       risk assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (All populations)..  NOAEL = 125 mg/kg/    Acute RfD = 1.25 mg/ Acute Neurotoxicity in Rats: LOAEL
                                    day.                  kg/day.              = 500 mg/kg/day based on
                                   UFA = 10x...........  aPAD = 1.25 mg/kg/    urination, staining/soiling of
                                   UFH = 10x...........   day.                 the anogenital region, mucous in
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........                        the feces, and unsteady gait in
                                                                               the females.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary..................  NOAEL= 2.83 mg/kg/    Chronic RfD =        2 Year Chronic Toxicity/
(All populations)................   day.                  0.0283 mg/kg/day.    Carcinogenicity in Rats: LOAEL =
                                   UFA = 10x...........  cPAD = 0.0283 mg/kg/  7.07/9.24 mg/kg/day (M/F) based
                                   UFH = 10x...........   day.                 on increase in severity of
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........                        diffuse thyroid C-cell
                                                                               hyperplasia in both sexes.
                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation)    Fenamidone is classified as ``not likely to be a human carcinogen'' by all
                                                            relevant routes of exposure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level
  of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-
  level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor.
  UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among
  members of the human population (intraspecies).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to fenamidone, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing fenamidone tolerances in 40 CFR
180.579. EPA assessed dietary

exposures from fenamidone 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 fenamidone. In estimating acute
dietary exposure, EPA used 2003-2008 food consumption information from
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey, ``What We Eat in America'' (NHANES/
WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, EPA used field-trial residue
values, assumed 100 percent crop treated (PCT) for all commodities, and
incorporated Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM)TM
default processing factors and empirical factors for processed
commodities.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the 2003-2008 food consumption data from the USDA's
NHANES/WWEIA. As to residue levels in food, EPA used field-trial
residue values, assumed 100 PCT for all commodities, and incorporated
Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM)TM default
processing factors and empirical factors for processed commodities.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that fenamidone does not pose a cancer risk to humans.
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing
cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue/Percent Crop Treated information. Although
the Agency assumed 100 percent crop treated for all commodities, EPA
used anticipated residue information in the assessment for this
fenamidone tolerance action. 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 FFDCA section 408(f)(1) 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 FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and
authorized under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be
submitted no later than 5 years from the date of issuance of these
tolerances.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for fenamidone in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of fenamidone. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.
    Based on the Tier II Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis
Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS)--Index Reservoir model and Pesticide Root
Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW), the estimated drinking water
concentrations (EDWCs) of fenamidone for acute exposures are estimated
to be 41.7 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 207 ppb for
ground water, and for chronic exposures are estimated to be 11.9 ppb
for surface water and 207 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For both the acute and chronic
dietary risk assessments, the ground water concentration value of 207
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).
    Fenamidone 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 fenamidone to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and fenamidone does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
fenamidone 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://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. Fenamidone did not
demonstrate any qualitative or quantitative increased susceptibility in
the rat and rabbit developmental toxicity studies or the 2-generation
rat reproduction study. In rabbits and rats, there were no
developmental effects up to the highest dose tested and in the presence
of maternal toxicity. In the reproduction study in rats, decreased
absolute brain weight in F2 female pups occurred at the same dose
levels as decreased absolute brain weight in F1 parental females.
    In the developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) study in rats, no maternal
toxicity was observed at doses up to 4,700 ppm (429 mg/kg/day),
although offspring systemic toxicity, manifested as decreased body
weight (9-11%) and body weight gain (8-20%) during pre-weaning and
decreased body weight (4-6%) during post-weaning, occurred at the
highest dose tested (429 mg/kg/day). The offspring NOAEL of 1,000 ppm
(92.3 mg/kg/day) indicates an increased susceptibility of offspring.
Nevertheless, the concern for the increased susceptibility observed in
the DNT is low because: (1) Of the lack of neurobehavioral or
neuropathological changes in the offspring at any dose; and (2) the
endpoints used for the various risk assessment scenarios are much more
sensitive than that of the decreased bodyweight of the offspring
occurring at almost half the limit-dose (429 mg/kg/day).
    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 fenamidone is complete.
    ii. There was no evidence of neurotoxicity in the subchronic
neurotoxicity study submitted for fenamidone. There was evidence of
neurotoxicity (urination, staining/soiling of the anogenital region,
mucous in the feces and unsteady gait in females) in the acute
neurotoxicity study, and EPA used the NOAEL from this study to assess
acute dietary exposure. There was also evidence of neurotoxicity
(decreased absolute brain weights) in the 2-generation rat reproduction
study; however, there was no indication of increased susceptibility of
offspring with regard to these effects. Finally, there was no evidence
of neurotoxicity at any dose in the submitted DNT study. Based on the
results of these studies, EPA concluded that there is no need for
additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. No qualitative or quantitative increased susceptibility of rat
or rabbit fetuses to in utero exposure in the developmental toxicity
studies was observed. There was no qualitative or quantitative
increased susceptibility in the two generation reproduction study
(rat). There is low concern for increased susceptibility observed in
the DNT study for the reasons noted in Unit III.D.2.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100 PCT and maximum or average field trial residue values. EPA made
conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water
modeling used to assess exposure to fenamidone in drinking water. These
assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by
fenamidone.

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 fenamidone will occupy 4.9% of the aPAD for children 1-2 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
fenamidone from food and water will utilize 56% of the cPAD for
children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. There are no residential uses for fenamidone.
    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, fenamidone is not registered for any use patterns that would
result in either short- or intermediate-term residential exposure.
Short- and intermediate-term risk is assessed based on short- and
intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary 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 fenamidone.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, fenamidone is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
    5. 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 fenamidone residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (liquid chromatographic method
coupled with tandem mass spectrum detection (LC/MS/MS), Method RPA
407213) 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.
    There are Codex MRLs for flowerhead brassicas including broccoli,
Chinese broccoli, and cauliflower at 4 ppm; cabbage at 0.9 ppm; lettuce
at 20 ppm; and celery at 40 ppm which are all lower than the proposed
U.S. tolerances. The U.S. tolerances cannot be harmonized (lowered)
because following the label use directions could result in residues
above the Codex MRLs.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    The petitioner sought separate tolerances on the subgroups 4-16A at
60 ppm and 4-15B at 55 ppm. The Agency is establishing the whole group
tolerance at 60 ppm for group 4-16, in order to harmonize with Canada.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of fenamidone in
or on basil, dried leaves at 200 ppm; basil, fresh leaves at 30 ppm;
celtuce at 60 ppm; cottonseed subgroup 20C at 0.02 ppm; fennel,
Florence, fresh leaves and stalk at 60 ppm; kohlrabi at 5.0 ppm; leaf
petiole vegetable subgroup 22B at 60 ppm; leafy vegetable group 4-16 at
60 ppm; and the vegetable, Brassica, head and stem, group 5-16 at 5.0
ppm.
    Additionally, the following existing crop group tolerances are
being removed since the commodities covered by those crop groups are
covered by the newly established crop group tolerances: Brassica, head
and stem subgroup 5A; Brassica leafy greens, subgroup 5B; cotton,
undelinted seed; and vegetable,

leafy, except Brassica, group 4. The majority of the commodities in
subgroups 5A and 5B and group 4 are explicitly included in the new
group tolerances, but some commodity entries from the existing subgroup
and group tolerances are not repeated in the new group tolerances. To
clarify how those commodities remain covered, EPA provides the
following explanation. First, subgroup 5A includes two commodities that
are not explicitly covered by other group tolerances: ``cabbage,
Chinese mustard'' and ``cavalo broccolo''. As EPA discussed in its
preamble to the proposed rule amending crop groups, 79 FR 68153 (Nov.
14, 2014), ``cabbage, Chinese mustard'' is not a distinct crop, just a
general reference to leafy, non-heading Brassica greens, which are
covered in group 4-16, and ``cavalo broccolo'' is the same species as
cauliflower, which is covered in group 5-16. Second, subgroup 5B
includes ``mustard spinach''. In the same preamble document, EPA noted
that ``mustard spinach'' is one of several names for mustard greens,
which are covered by the new group 5-16. Third, group 4 includes
``tampala amaranth'', ``chrysanthemum, edible-leaved'', and ``Indian
spinach''. Each of these commodity entries are alternative names for
other commodities still contained in the new group 4-16 and so no
longer necessary: ``edible-leaved chrysanthemum'' is another name for
``chrysanthemum garland''; the preferred name for ``tampala amaranth''
is ``Chinese amaranth''; and the preferred name for ``Indian spinach''
is ``Malabar spinach''. Therefore, residues on commodities listed in
the existing group tolerances are still covered by the establishment of
the new group tolerances.
    Lastly, the existing entry for cilantro, leaves is being modified
to read ``Cilantro, fresh leaves'' in accordance with Agency
nomenclature.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: June 12, 2017.
Michael L. Goodis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.579;
0
i. Add alphabetically the entries ``Basil, dried leaves''; ``Basil,
fresh leaves''; ``Celtuce''; ``Cottonseed subgroup 20C''; ``Fennel,
Florence, fresh leaves and stalk''; ``Kohlrabi''; ``Leaf petiole
vegetable subgroup 22B''; Leafy vegetable group 4-16''; and Vegetable,
Brassica, head and stem, group 5-16'' to the table in paragraph (a)(1):
0
ii. Remove the entries for ``Brassica, head and stem subgroup 5A'';
``Brassica leafy greens, subgroup 5B''; ``Cotton, undelinted seed'';
and ``Vegetable, leafy, except Brassica, group 4'' from the table in
paragraph (a)(1).
0
iii. Remove the entry ``Cilantro, leaves'' and add in its place
``Cilantro, fresh leaves''.
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

Sec.  180.579  Fenamidone; tolerances for residues.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Parts per
                          Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basil, dried leaves.........................................         200
Basil, fresh leaves.........................................          30

                                * * * * *
Celtuce.....................................................          60
Cilantro, fresh leaves......................................          60

                                * * * * *
Cottonseed subgroup 20C.....................................        0.02
Fennel, Florence, fresh leaves and stalk....................          60

                                * * * * *
Kohlrabi....................................................         5.0
Leaf petiole vegetable subgroup 22B.........................          60
Leafy vegetable group 4-16..................................          60

                                * * * * *
Vegetable, Brassica, head and stem, group 5-16..............         5.0

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-15743 Filed 7-27-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 19 (Monday, January 30, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5731-5733]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01790]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1115; Airspace Docket No. 22-AGL-10]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of V-181 and T-400, and Revocation of V-250 and the
Yankton, SD, Low Altitude Reporting Point in the Vicinity of Yankton,
SD

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Very High Frequency (VHF) Omnidirectional
Range (VOR) Federal airway V-181 and Area Navigation (RNAV) route T-400
and revokes VOR Federal airway V-250 and the Yankton, SD, Low Altitude
Reporting Point. The FAA is taking this action due to the planned
decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Yankton, SD, VOR/Distance
Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) navigational aid (NAVAID). The Yankton
VOR is being decommissioned in support of the FAA's VOR Minimum
Operational Network (MON) program.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, April 20, 2023. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11
and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for Docket
No. FAA-2022-1115 in the Federal Register (87 FR 58041; September 23,
2022), amending VOR Federal airway V-181 and RNAV route T-400 and
revoking VOR Federal airway V-250 and the Yankton, SD, Low Altitude
Reporting Point due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion
of the Yankton, SD, VOR/DME NAVAID. Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal. No comments were received.
    VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a), United
States Area Navigation Routes (T-routes) are published in paragraph
6011, and Domestic Low Altitude Reporting Points are published in
paragraph 7001 of FAA Order JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and
effective September 15, 2022, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR 71.1. The Air Traffic Service (ATS) route and low altitude
reporting point actions listed in this document will be published
subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

Differences From the NPRM

    Subsequent to the NPRM, the FAA published a rule for Docket No.
FAA-2022-0248 in the Federal Register (87 FR 64695; October 26, 2022),
amending VOR Federal airway V-181 by removing the airway segment
between the Sioux Falls, SD, VOR/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) and
the Fargo, ND, VOR/DME. That airway amendment, effective December 29,
2022, is included in this rule.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations
and Reporting Points, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September
15, 2022. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class
A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending VOR Federal airway V-
181 and RNAV route T-400 and revoking VOR Federal airway V-250 and the
Yankton, SD, low altitude reporting point. The ATS route and low
altitude reporting point amendments and revocations are due to the
planned decommissioning of the Yankton, SD, VOR. The ATS route and low
altitude reporting point actions are described below.
    V-181: V-181 extends between the Kirksville, MO, VORTAC and the
Sioux Falls, SD, VORTAC; and between the Fargo, ND, VOR/DME and the
Grand Forks, ND, VOR/DME. The airway segment overlying the Yankton VOR/
DME between the Norfolk, NE, VOR/DME and the Sioux Falls, SD, VORTAC is
removed. As amended, the airway is changed to extend between the
Kirksville, MO, VORTAC and the Norfolk, NE, VOR/DME and between the
Fargo, ND, VOR/DME and the Grand Forks, ND, VOR/DME.
    V-250: V-250 extends between the O'Neill, NE, VORTAC and the
Yankton, SD, VOR/DME. The airway is removed in its entirety.
    T-400: T-400 extends between the LLUKY, NE, waypoint (WP) and the
ZOSAG, MN, WP. The IMUPP, SD, WP on the route is replaced with the
FIITS, SD, WP to define the route crossing point between T-400 and T-
405. The full T-400 route description is listed in the amendments to
part 71 as set forth below.
    Yankton, SD: The Yankton, SD, low altitude reporting point is
removed.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action of amending VOR Federal
airway V-181 and RNAV route T-400 and revoking VOR Federal airway V-250
and the Yankton, SD, Low Altitude Reporting Point, due to the planned
decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Yankton, SD, VOR/DME NAVAID,
qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and its implementing regulations at
40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F,
Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which
categorically excludes from further environmental impact review
rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas,
airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation
of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes;
and Reporting Points); paragraph 5-6.5b, which categorically excludes
from further environmental impact review actions regarding
establishment of jet routes and Federal airways (see 14 CFR 71.15,
Designation of jet routes and VOR Federal airways); paragraph 5-6.5i,
which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review
the establishment of new or revised air traffic control procedures
conducted at 3,000 feet or more above ground level (AGL); procedures
conducted below 3,000 feet AGL that do not cause traffic to be
routinely routed over noise sensitive areas; modifications to currently
approved procedures conducted below 3,000 feet AGL that do not
significantly increase noise over noise sensitive areas; and increases
in minimum altitudes and landing minima; and paragraph 5-6.5k, which
categorically excludes from further environmental impact review the
publication of existing air traffic control procedures that do not
essentially change existing tracks, create new tracks, change altitude,
or change

concentration of aircraft on these tracks. As such, this action is not
expected to result in any potentially significant environmental
impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding
Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for
factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded
action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further
analysis. The FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances
exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact study.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Amendment

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

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

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19,
2022, and effective September 15, 2022, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal Airways.

* * * * *

V-181 [Amended]

    From Kirksville, MO; Lamoni, IA; Omaha, IA; to Norfolk, NE. From
Fargo, ND; to Grand Forks, ND.
* * * * *

V-250 [Removed]

* * * * *

Paragraph 6011 United States Area Navigation Routes.

* * * * *

T-400 LLUKY, NE to ZOSAG, MN [Amended]

LLUKY, NE                                       WP                             (Lat. 42[deg]29'20.26'' N, long. 098[deg]38'11.44'' W)
FIITS, SD                                       WP                             (Lat. 42[deg]55'06.67'' N, long. 097[deg]23'06.12'' W)
DURWN, MN                                       WP                             (Lat. 43[deg]38'48.91'' N, long. 095[deg]34'55.87'' W)
MEMCO, MN                                       WP                             (Lat. 44[deg]13'11.42'' N, long. 093[deg]54'45.23'' W)
ZOSAG, MN                                       WP                             (Lat. 44[deg]49'30.74'' N, long. 093[deg]26'34.08'' W)

* * * * *

Paragraph 7001 Domestic Low Altitude Reporting Points.

* * * * *

Yankton, SD [Removed]

* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 24, 2023.
Brian Konie,
Acting Manager, Airspace Rules and Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2023-01790 Filed 1-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P