[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 45 (Thursday, March 7, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14644-14647]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04633]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0860; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-123-AD;
Amendment 39-17369; AD 2013-04-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -800, and -900ER series
airplanes. This AD was prompted by incorrect wire support clamps
installed within the left environmental control systems (ECS) bay,
which could allow wiring to come in contact with the exposed metal of
the improper clamp. This AD requires inspections to identify the part
number of the wire support clamp, related investigative actions, and
corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to prevent
electrical arcing and a potential ignition source within the ECS bay,
which in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a
center wing fuel tank explosion, and consequent loss of the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective April 11, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of April 11,
2013.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing

Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box
3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Georgios Roussos, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 27, 2012 (77 FR
51720). That NPRM proposed to require inspections to identify the part
number (P/N) of the wire support clamp, related investigative actions,
and corrective actions if necessary.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal
(77 FR 51720, August 27, 2012) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Statement To Address Effects of NPRM (77 FR 51720, August 27, 2012) on
Winglets

    Aviation Partners Boeing stated that the installation of winglets
per Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST00830SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/408E012E008616A7862578880060456C?OpenDocument&Highlight=st00830se) does
not affect the actions specified by the NPRM (77 FR 51720, August 27,
2012).

Requests To Remove or Change the ``Parts Installation Prohibition''
Section

    Boeing requested the ``Parts Installation Prohibition,'' paragraph
(h) of the NPRM (77 FR 51720, August 27, 2012), be removed because
there are other types of clamps installed within the ECS bay that are
not included in either Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-
28-1303, dated April 26, 2012, or the NPRM (77 FR 51720, August 27,
2012). Boeing also requested that we include P/Ns TA0930034-10P,
TA0930034-11, and TA0930034-12P wire support clamps because they are
interchangeable with P/N TA0930034-10. Alaska Airlines requested that
the ``Parts Installation Prohibition'' paragraph be changed to clarify
affected airplanes, and pointed out that AD 2010-24-11, Amendment 39-
16530 (75 FR 74616, December 1, 2010), also addresses clamps installed
in the left ECS bay, but allows installation of clamp P/N TA0930034-11
at the same clamp position. Delta Air Lines (Delta) requested that we
ensure that paragraph (h) of the NPRM, only applies to those airplanes
subject to the NPRM. Japan Airlines requested that we specify, in
paragraph (h) of the NPRM, the locations within the left ECS bay that
P/N TA0930034-10P clamps may be installed.
    We agree to revise paragraph (i) of this AD (referred to as
paragraph (h) in the NPRM (77 FR 51720, August 27, 2012)). We agree to
allow installation of wire support clamps P/Ns TA0930034-10P,
TA0930034-11, and TA0930034-12P, in addition to P/N TA0930034-10, and
to limit the prohibition to the locations specified in Figures 1
through 4 of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-28-1303,
dated April 26, 2012. We have revised paragraph (i) of this AD
accordingly.
    In addition, we agree to clarify the phrase ``on any airplane''
used in paragraph (i) of this AD. The applicability statement in all AD
actions lists all airplanes affected by that AD. All of the
requirements stated in an AD are applicable only to the airplanes
listed in the applicability of that AD. We have not changed the final
rule regarding this issue.

Requests To Allow Use of Certain Other Wire Support Clamps

    Boeing and Japan Airlines requested that the NPRM (77 FR 51720,
August 27, 2012) allow use of certain other wire support clamps in
addition to P/N TA0930034-10, as specified by Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 737-28-1303, dated April 26, 2012. Japan Airlines
requested that we allow the use of clamp P/N TA0930034-10P, and
referred to discussions with Boeing that support use of this part
number clamp, that is also fully cushioned. Boeing requested the
corrective actions statement in the ``Relevant Service Information''
section of the preamble of the NPRM (77 FR 51720, August 27, 2012) be
revised to read, ``Corrective actions include replacing the discrepant
clamp with a new or serviceable TA0930034-10, TA0930034-10P, TA0930034-
11, or TA0930034-12P wire support clamp if the part number is
incorrect, and repairing or replacing chafed wiring.'' Boeing stated
that P/Ns TA0930034-10P, TA0930034-11, and TA0930034-12P are
interchangeable with P/N TA0930034-10.
    We agree to allow installation of P/Ns TA0930034-10P, TA0930034-11,
and TA0930034-12P wire support clamps. We have added new paragraph (h)
in this final rule to provide an exception to Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 737-28-1303, dated April 26, 2012, allow use of P/Ns
TA0930034-10P, TA0930034-11, and TA0930034-12P wire support clamps. We
have re-identified subsequent paragraphs accordingly.
    We partially agree with the intent of Boeing's request to revise
the ``Relevant Service Information'' section of the NPRM (77 FR 51720,
August 27, 2012). Boeing's request included removing the phrase ``or if
the flange cushions do not completely surround the two metal strap
sections of the wire support clamp.'' This phrase is based on the
procedures specified in Step 1 of Figures 1 and 2 of Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 737-28-1303, dated April 26, 2012, and is
part of the inspection required by this AD. Therefore, we do not agree
that this phrase should be removed from the description of the
inspection. As stated previously, we do agree that installing P/Ns
TA0930034-10P, TA0930034-11, and TA0930034-12P wire support clamps is
acceptable for accomplishing the corrective action. However, the
``Relevant Service Information'' section of the NPRM is not restated in
this AD, so we have not revised this AD in this regard.

Request To Clarify Impacted Fuel Tank

    Boeing requested that the ``Summary'' and ``Discussion'' sections
in the NPRM (77 FR 51720, August 27, 2012) be revised to add the text,
``in the center wing tank,'' and to read, ``We are proposing this AD to
prevent electrical arcing and a potential ignition source in the center
wing tank, which in combination with flammable fuel vapors could result
in a fuel tank explosion, and consequent loss of the airplane,'' to
clarify the area that might be potentially impacted by the unsafe
condition identified in the NPRM.
    We partially agree. We agree with Boeing's request to identify the
center wing tank as the impacted tank, because the center wing tank
located above the ECS bay is the fuel tank potentially affected by the
unsafe condition identified in this AD. We disagree to state that this
AD will prevent electrical arcing and a potential ignition source in
the center wing tank, because the potential ignition source has been
identified to be within the ECS bay, which is a flammable leakage fluid
zone. A potential ignition within the ECS bay could lead to a fire in
the area and potentially result in a center wing tank explosion.
Therefore, we agree to identify the center wing tank as the affected
fuel tank without including the misleading statement that this AD will
prevent electrical arcing within the fuel tank. We further recognize
that the same issue applies to paragraph (e), ``Unsafe Condition,'' of
this AD and note that the ``Discussion'' section that appeared in the
NPRM (77 FR 51720, August 27, 2012) is not restated in the final rule.
We have revised the Summary and paragraph (e) of this AD to specify
that we are issuing this AD ``to prevent electrical arcing and a
potential ignition source within the ECS bay, which in combination with
flammable fuel vapors, could result in a center wing fuel tank
explosion, and consequent loss of the airplane.''

Request To Clarify Airplane Maintenance Data

    Delta pointed to inconsistencies between the type design data and
the aircraft illustrated parts catalog (AIPC) used for maintaining
airplanes. Delta stated that the AIPC does not accurately identify all
clamp locations that are needed for AD compliance, and pointed out that
discrepancies within type design data and maintenance data could result
in a re-occurrence of clamp installation discrepancies, which occurred
in production and resulted in the airworthiness directive.
    We acknowledge that if operators refer to and use an inaccurate
AIPC, it could result in non-compliance with AD requirements. However,
it is the responsibility of the operators to ensure that they are in
compliance with AD requirements. In addition, the AIPC is not an FAA
approved or controlled document. We have not changed the AD in this
regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the changes described previously-- and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (77 FR 51720, August 27, 2012) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 51720, August 27, 2012).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 297 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Cost per        Number of     Cost on U.S.
            Action                 Labor cost       Parts cost        product        airplanes       operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection Group 1 airplanes..  10 work-hours x               $0            $850             185        $157,250
                                 $85 per hour =
                                 $850.
Inspection Group 2 airplanes..  2 work-hours x                 0             170             112          19,040
                                 $85 per hour =
                                 $170.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements
that would be required based on the results of the required inspection.
We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need
these replacements.

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement of wire support clamp............  1 work-hour x $85 per hour =                 $3              $88
                                                $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be
covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.
    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition repair of chafed or damaged wiring
specified in this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. 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.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition

that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2013-04-11 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-17369; Docket No. FAA-
2012-0860; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-123-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective April 11, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -800,
and -900ER series airplanes, certificated in any category,
identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-28-1303,
dated April 26, 2012.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel System.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by incorrect wire support clamps installed
within the left environmental control systems (ECS) bay, which could
allow wiring to come in contact with the exposed metal of the
improper clamp. We are issuing this AD to prevent electrical arcing
and a potential ignition source within the ESC bay, which in
combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a center
wing fuel tank explosion, and consequent loss of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Inspection and Corrective Actions

    Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, do a
detailed inspection for part number (P/N) TA0930034-10 wire support
clamp at the locations specified in Figures 1 through 4 of Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-28-1303, dated April 26,
2012, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective
actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-28-1303, dated April
26, 2012, except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD. Do all
applicable related investigative and corrective actions before
further flight.

(h) Exception to Service Information

    Where Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-28-1303,
dated April 26, 2012, specifies to install P/N TA0930034-10 wire
support clamp, this AD also allows installation of P/Ns TA0930034-
10P, TA0930034-11, and TA0930034-12P wire support clamps.

(i) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a
wire support clamp at the locations specified in Figures 1 through 4
of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-28-1303, dated
April 26, 2012, on any airplane, unless the wire support clamp is P/
N TA0930034-10, TA0930034-10P, TA0930034-11, or TA0930034-12P.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Georgios Roussos,
Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA,
Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-28-1303, dated
April 26, 2012.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone
206-544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 20, 2013.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-04633 Filed 3-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 7, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 128)]
[Notices]
[Page 32143]
[DOCID:fr07jy09-42]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

June 25, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP09-773-000.
    Applicants: Dauphin Island Gathering Partners.
    Description: Dauphin Island Gathering Partners 2009 Cash Out Refund
Report.
    Filed Date: 06/22/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090622-5064.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 06, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-774-000.
    Applicants: Kern River Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Kern River Gas Transmission Company submits Sixth
Revised Sheet No 490 et al. to its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised
Volume No 1.
    Filed Date: 06/22/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090623-0103.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 06, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-775-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Transmission, Inc.
    Description: Dominion Transmission, Inc submits Seventeenth Revised
Sheet 1300 et al. to its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume 1, to be
effective 7/23/09.
    Filed Date: 06/23/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090624-0001.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 06, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-776-000.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Northern Natural Gas Company submits petitions for a
limited waiver of tariff provisions.
    Filed Date: 06/23/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090624-0036.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 06, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-777-000.
    Applicants: Dauphin Island Gathering Partners.
    Description: Dauphin Island Gathering Partners submits First
Revised Sheet No 11 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No
1, to be effective July 1, 2009.
    Filed Date: 06/24/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090624-0020.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 06, 2009.

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

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-15866 Filed 7-6-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 238 (Wednesday, December 13, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 86268-86273]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27254]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0657; FRL-11567-01-OCSPP]

Dodine; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of dodine
in or on Fruit, pome, group 11-10; Fruit, stone, group 12-12; Nut,
tree, group 14-12; and Olive, with pit. Interregional Research Project
Number 4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective December 13, 2023. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before February 12, 2024,
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-2021-0657, is available at
https://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 and the OPP Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the
visitor instructions and additional information about the docket
available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Smith, Director, Registration
Division (7505T), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-
0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

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 Federal Register
Office's e-CFR site at https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40.

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), 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-2021-0657 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
February 12, 2024. 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-2021-0657, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/where-send-comments-epa-dockets.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerances

    In the Federal Register of April 28, 2022 (87 FR 25178) (FRL-9410-
12-OCSPP), 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
1E8935) by IR-4, North Carolina State University, 1730 Varsity Drive,
Venture IV, Suite 210, Raleigh, NC 27606. The petition requested that
40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of
dodine in or on the raw agricultural commodities: Fruit, pome, group
11-10 at 5 parts per million (ppm); Fruit, stone, group 12-12 at 5 ppm;
Nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.3 ppm; and Olive, with pit at 0.3 ppm.
    The petition also requested to remove the following established
dodine tolerances in or on: Apple at 5.0 ppm; Fruit, stone, crop group
12 at 5.0 ppm; Nuts, tree, crop group 14 at 0.3 ppm; and Pear at 5.0
ppm.
    That document referenced a summary of the petition, which is
available in the docket, https://www.regulations.gov. Two comments were
received in response to the notice. EPA's response to these comments
can be found in section IV.D.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition and in
accordance with its authority under FFDCA section 408(d)(4)(A)(i), EPA
is modifying the level at which one of the tolerances is being
established. For details, see Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified therein, 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 dodine including exposure resulting from the
tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures
and risks associated with dodine 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.
    Because of toxicological equivalency, the Agency must also consider
any applicable contribution from the antimicrobial pesticide
dodecylguanidine hydrochloride (DGH). There are no direct food uses
established for DGH, but there are dietary exposures from uses on paper
and paperboard and in drinking water from industrial uses.
    A definitive target organ was not identified for dodine or DGH in
the available toxicology data, with the most common effects being
decreases in body weight and/or body weight gain. When allometric
scaling is used to adjust to a human equivalent dosage, the dog was
found to be the most sensitive species for this endpoint.
    There was no evidence of increased qualitative or quantitative
susceptibility in pups or fetuses as compared to adults based on rat
and rabbit developmental studies and a rat multi-generation
reproduction study. In rat and rabbit prenatal developmental studies,
there was no toxicity identified in the fetuses up to the highest dose
tested. In the 2-generation reproduction study, decreases in body
weight and food consumption were seen in pups at the same dose at which
maternal toxicity (decreases in body weight, body weight gain, and food
consumption) was observed. In addition, there was no evidence of
neurotoxicity across the database. Dodine is classified as ``Not Likely
to be Carcinogenic to Humans''.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by dodine and DGH as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-levels (NOAELs) and the lowest-

observed-adverse-effect-levels (LOAELs) from the toxicity studies can
be found in Appendix A of the document titled ``Dodine. Risk Assessment
for the Proposed Use on Olives; Crop Group Expansions to Fruit Pome
Group 11-10; and Crop Group Conversions to Stone Fruit Group 12-12 and
Tree Nut Group 14-12 and Updated Registration Review Human Health Draft
Risk Assessment'' (hereafter, the Dodine Human Health Risk Assessment),
in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0657 at https://www.regulations.gov.

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 https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks.
    A summary of the Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of
Concern for dodine used for human health risk assessment can be found
in Table <IP_ADDRESS> of the Dodine Human Health Risk Assessment, in docket
ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0657 at https://www.regulations.gov.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to dodine, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for
tolerances as well as all existing tolerances for dodine in 40 CFR
180.172. While there are no direct food uses established for DGH, EPA
considered indirect dietary exposure from use of DGH on paper and
paperboard in contact with food. EPA assessed dietary exposures from
dodine in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. No such effects were
identified in the toxicological studies for dodine or DGH; therefore, a
quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. Chronic aggregate dietary exposure and risk
assessments were conducted using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model
software with the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID) Version
4.02. This software uses 2005-2010 food consumption data from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). The chronic
analysis incorporated mean field trial residues for most commodities
and tolerance-level residues for the remaining commodities. Percent
crop treated (PCT) data were used for some crops, and 100 PCT was
assumed for all other crops. The analyses incorporated default
processing factors for processed commodities where no processing study
was conducted. For apple juice and olive oil, empirical processing
factors of 0.1X were used.
    Indirect dietary exposure has the potential to occur from the use
of DGH as a material preservative in paper and paperboard intended for
use in contact with food, with a retention rate of up to 0.045% by
weight of the paper or paperboard. This use is considered protective of
other indirect food uses, including paper slimicides, materials
preservative of the outermost ply of multiwalled paper bags containing
dry food, adhesives and polymers, and sapstain on fruit and vegetable
containers.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in the Dodine Human
Health Risk Assessment, EPA has concluded that dodine is not likely
pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment
for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. Section 408(b)(2)(E)
of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the
anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual
levels of pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If EPA
relies on such information, EPA must require pursuant to 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.
    Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data
on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary
risk only if:
     Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a
valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop
is likely to contain the pesticide residue.
     Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group.
     Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food
consumption in a particular area, and the exposure estimate does not
understate exposure for the population in such area.
    In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any
estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate
of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require
registrants to submit data on PCT.
    The annual average percent crop treated estimates used in the
chronic dietary risk assessment are as follows: almonds: 2.5%; apples:
5%; cherries: 20%; nectarines: 1%; peaches: 1%; peanuts: 2.5%; pears:
2.5%; pecans: 20%; and walnuts: 1%. 100 PCT was assumed for all other
crops.
    In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States
Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service
(USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and California Department of
Pesticide Regulation (CalDPR) Pesticide Use Reporting (PUR) for the
chemical/crop combination for the most recent 10 years. EPA uses an
average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis and a maximum PCT for
acute dietary risk analysis. The average PCT figure for each existing
use is derived by combining available public and private market survey
data for that use, averaging across all observations, and rounding to
the nearest 5%, except for those situations in which the average PCT is
less than 1% or less than 2.5% as the average PCT value, respectively.
In those cases, the Agency would use

1% or 2.5% as the average PCT value, respectively. The maximum PCT
figure is the highest observed maximum value reported within the most
recent 10 years of available public and private market survey data for
the existing use and rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5%, except
where the maximum PCT is less than 2.5%, in which case, the Agency uses
2.5% as the maximum PCT.
    The Agency believes that Conditions a, b, and c discussed above
have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates are derived
from Federal and private market survey data, which are reliable and
have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that the
percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an underestimation.
As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption information and
consumption information for significant subpopulations is taken into
account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating the exposure
of significant subpopulations including several regional groups. Use of
this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment process ensures
that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate exposure for any
significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency to be reasonably
certain that no regional population is exposed to residue levels higher
than those estimated by the Agency. Other than the data available
through national food consumption surveys, EPA does not have available
reliable information on the regional consumption of food to which
dodine may be applied in a particular area.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening-
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for dodine in drinking water. Further information regarding
EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/models-pesticide-risk-assessment.
    A chronic surface water estimated drinking water concentration
(EDWC) of 1.59 parts per billion (ppb) determined with the FQPA Index
Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) was used for dietary assessment.
Because dodine has a high partition coefficient, is relatively non-
persistent in aerobic soils, and has a lack of transport in the field,
leaching to groundwater is not expected to be a major route of
dissipation.
    Drinking water exposure to DGH has the potential to occur when
drinking water intakes are downstream from cooling towers, paper mills,
and/or other water systems using DGH as a slimicide. Drinking water
exposure is expected to be minimal from other currently registered uses
of DGH such as materials preservation of leather and textiles. The
highest chronic EDWC from the modeled use patterns is 22 [mu]g ai/L
from once-through cooling towers using an application rate of 6.0 ppm
DGH. This drinking water concentration is considered protective of the
other uses.
    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). There are no current
or proposed conventional or antimicrobial residential uses of dodine or
DGH.
    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.''
    Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative
risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made
a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to dodine and any other
substances and dodine does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite
produced by other substances. For the purposes of this action,
therefore, EPA has not assumed that dodine has a common mechanism of
toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts
to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to
evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at
https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.
    EPA notes that dodine and DGH are salts of the same chemical. They
dissociate similarly and are considered toxicologically equivalent, as
opposed to being separate chemicals that share a common mechanism of
toxicity.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality
Protection Act safety factor. In applying this provision, EPA either
retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety
factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a
different factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is no evidence of
susceptibility following in utero and/or postnatal exposure in the
developmental toxicity studies in rats or rabbits, nor in the 2-
generation rat reproduction study.
    3. Conclusion. The FQPA safety factor is reduced to 1X for all
exposure scenarios except for inhalation exposure. The Agency is
retaining a 10X database uncertainty factor (UFDB) to assess
risk to dodine inhalation scenarios to account for the lack of an
acceptable inhalation toxicity study.
    i. Except for an acceptable inhalation toxicity study, the
toxicology database for dodine and DGH is complete and adequate to
assess potential risk to infants and children. The database contains
the following toxicity studies: prenatal developmental studies (rats
and rabbits); and a reproduction study in rats.
    ii. Neurotoxicity studies are not available for dodine or DGH.
Clinical signs (excessive salivation and hunched posture/hypoactivity)
were observed in chronic studies of dodine in rats and mice but were
not dose-related or statistically significant. Excessive salivation in
dogs after dodine (capsule) exposure showed a treatment-related dose
response; however, it was not consistent with a neurological adverse
effect since it was seen prior to dosing and was a persistent finding
throughout the study. It is possible that the excessive salivation was
a result of the irritant properties of dodine. In addition, no evidence
of neuropathology was observed in the available studies. The Hazard and
Science Policy Council (HASPOC) recommended waiving the requirement for
the acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies, based on (1) the low
acute oral toxicity of dodine (Toxicity Category III); (2) the lack of
neurotoxicity in the dodine toxicity database; and (3) no neurotoxicity
concerns for structurally related compounds to dodine.
    iii. Based on the available dodine and DGH toxicity studies, there
was no evidence of increased susceptibility (quantitative or
qualitative) in pups or fetuses as compared to adults based on rat and
rabbit developmental studies

and a rat multi-generation reproduction study. In rat and rabbit
prenatal developmental studies, there was no toxicity identified in the
fetuses up to the highest dose tested. In the 2-generation reproduction
study, decreases in body weight and food consumption were seen in pups
at the same dose at which maternal toxicity (decreases in body weight,
body weight gain, and food consumption) was observed.
    iv. The exposure databases are sufficient to determine the nature
and magnitude of the residue in food and drinking water. The dodine
residue chemistry database is complete. The exposure assessment for
drinking water provides a conservative approach for estimating dodine
and DGH concentrations from drinking water sources, and thus is
unlikely to underestimate exposure. The food and drinking water dietary
exposure analyses are unlikely to underestimate exposure as they
incorporated conservative assumptions for dodine and DGH.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing dietary (food and drinking water)
exposure estimates to the acute population-adjusted dose (aPAD) and
chronic population-adjusted dose (cPAD). Short- intermediate- and
chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated total food,
water, and residential exposure to the appropriate points of departure
to ensure that an adequate margin of exposure (MOE) exists.
    1. Acute risk. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral
exposure was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected.
Therefore, dodine is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. The chronic dietary risk assessment includes only
food and water exposure from dodine and DGH. Chronic dietary risks from
dodine (food and drinking water) are below the Agency's level of
concern of 100% of the cPAD; they are 6.1% of the cPAD for all infants
less than 1 year old, the group with the highest exposure. Chronic
dietary risks from DGH (food and water) are below the Agency's level of
concern of 100% of the cPAD; they are 95% of the cPAD for children 1 to
2 years old, the group with the highest exposure.
    There are no chronic non-occupational exposures, so the aggregate
chronic risk assessment is equal to the chronic dietary exposure
analysis of food and drinking water. The chronic aggregate assessment
includes: (1) food only contributions from agricultural uses of dodine,
including the proposed uses; (2) food only contributions from DGH in
paper and paperboard intended for use in contact with food; and (3)
drinking water only contributions from DGH in water from cooling tower
uses, which is protective of drinking water exposures resulting from
conventional agricultural uses of dodine. This aggregate assessment
resulted in risk estimates that are below the Agency's level of concern
of 100% of the cPAD; they are 98% of the cPAD for children 1 to 2 years
old, the group with the highest exposure, which is considered
protective for all other population subgroups.
    3. Short- and intermediate-term risk. Short- and intermediate-term
adverse effects were identified; however, dodine is not registered for
any use patterns that would result in short- and/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-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 dodine.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. There was equivocal
evidence of carcinogenicity in rat and mouse carcinogenicity studies;
however, an evaluation of the carcinogenic potential of dodine was
performed which concluded that the weight of evidence indicates that
dodine and DGH are ``Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans.''
Therefore, dodine and DGH are not expected to pose a cancer risk to
humans.
    5. Determination of safety. Therefore, based on the risk
assessments and information described above, EPA concludes there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general
population, or to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to
dodine residues. More detailed information on this action can be found
in the Dodine Human Health Risk Assessment in docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-
2021-0657.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Method 45137, which is entitled ``Dodine: Analytical Method for
Dodine in Fruit,'' is available for the enforcement of tolerances of
dodine in/on plant commodities. This method is a Gas Chromatograph/Mass
Selective Detection (GC/MSD) procedure based on extracting dodine from
fruit by homogenization with methanol. The method may be requested
from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center,
701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-
2905; email address: [email protected].

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.
    Codex has established MRLs for residues of dodine in or on apple at
5 ppm; pear at 5 ppm; cherry at 3 ppm; nectarine at 5 ppm; and peach at
5 ppm. The U.S. tolerances are harmonized with the corresponding Codex
MRLs except for cherry. The cherry field trial data show that residues
from the domestic labeled use of dodine may exceed the 3 ppm Codex
cherry MRL. Therefore, it is not possible to harmonize with the Codex
MRL based on the U.S. application pattern.

C. Revisions to Tolerances

    The Agency is establishing the tolerance level for ``olive, with
pit'' at 0.4 ppm instead of the requested level of 0.3 ppm. Two of the
2011 olive trials from Greece were determined to be replicates, and
this determination resulted in a higher calculated maximum residue
limit (MRL) than the petitioner requested.

D. Response to Comments

    Two comments were received in response to the Notice of Filing by
the same commenter. The commenter stated in part that ``we need to stop
all chemical use on vegetables'' and that ``toxic in your body kill
you.'' Although the Agency recognizes that some individuals believe
that pesticides should be banned on agricultural crops, the existing
legal framework provided by section 408 of the FFDCA authorizes EPA to
establish tolerances when it determines that the tolerances are safe.
Upon consideration of the validity, completeness, and reliability of
the available data as well as other factors the FFDCA requires EPA to
consider, EPA has determined that the dodine tolerances are safe. The
commenter has provided no information indicating that a safety
determination cannot be supported.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of dodine in or
on Fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 5 ppm; Fruit, stone, group 12-12 at 5
ppm; Nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.3 ppm; and Olive, with pit at 0.4 ppm.
    Additionally, the following existing tolerances are removed as
unnecessary: Apple; Fruit, stone, crop group 12; Nut, tree, crop group
14; and Pear.

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 to 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 tolerances 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: December 7, 2023.
Charles Smith,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending
40 CFR chapter I as follows:

PART 180--TOLERANCES AND EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE CHEMICAL RESIDUES
IN FOOD

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. Revise Sec.  180.172 to read as follows:

Sec.  180.172  Dodine; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of the
fungicide dodine, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on
the commodities in table1 to this paragraph (a). Compliance with the
tolerance levels specified in table1 is to be determined by measuring
only dodine, N-dodecylguanidine acetate; in or on the following
commodities.

                        Table 1 to Paragraph (a)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almond, hull..............................................          30.0
Apple, wet pomace.........................................          15.0
Banana....................................................          0.50
Fruit, pome, group 11-10..................................             5
Fruit, stone, group 12-12.................................             5
Nut, tree, group 14-12....................................           0.3
Olive, with pit...........................................           0.4
Peanut....................................................         0.013
Strawberry................................................           5.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b)-(d) [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 2023-27254 Filed 12-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 178 (Monday, September 14, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56602-56603]
[FR Doc No: 2020-20157]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-10013-39-OAR]

Announcing Upcoming Meeting of Mobile Sources Technical Review
Subcommittee

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, EPA announces
an upcoming meeting of the Mobile Sources Technical Review Subcommittee
(MSTRS), which is a subcommittee under the Clean Air Act Advisory
Committee (CAAAC). This is a virtual meeting and open to the public.
The meeting will include discussion of current topics and presentations
about activities being conducted by EPA's Office of Transportation and
Air Quality. MSTRS listserv subscribers will receive notification when
the agenda is available on the Subcommittee website. To subscribe to
the MSTRS listserv, send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
DATES: EPA will hold a virtual public meeting on Monday, October 19,
2020 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). Please
monitor the website https://www.epa.gov/caaac/mobile-sources-technical-review-subcommittee-mstrs-caaac for any changes to meeting logistics.
The final meeting agenda will be posted on the website.

ADDRESSES: For information on the public meeting or to register to
attend, please contact<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public who wishes to
attend the meeting or provide comments should express this intent by
emailing<EMAIL_ADDRESS>no later than Thursday, October 1, 2020. Further
information concerning this public meeting and general information
concerning the MSTRS can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/caaac/mobile-sources-technical-review-subcommittee-mstrs-caaac. Other MSTRS
inquiries can be directed to Julia Burch, the Designated Federal
Officer for MSTRS, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, at 202-
564-0961 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: During the meeting, the Subcommittee may
also hear progress reports from its workgroups as well as updates and
announcements on Office of Transportation and Air Quality activities of
general interest to attendees.
    Participation in virtual public meetings. Please note that EPA is
deviating from its typical approach because the President has declared
a national emergency. Because of current CDC recommendations, as well
as state and local orders for social distancing to limit the spread of
COVID-19, EPA cannot hold in-person public meetings at this time.
    The virtual public meeting will provide interested parties the
opportunity to participate in this Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
    EPA is asking all meeting attendees, even those who do not intend
to speak, to register for the meeting by sending an email to the
address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above, by
Thursday October 1, 2020. This will help EPA ensure that sufficient
participation capacity will be available.
    Please note that any updates made to any aspect of the meeting
logistics, including potential additional sessions, will be posted
online at https://www.epa.gov/caaac/mobile-sources-technical-review-subcommittee-mstrs-caaac. While EPA expects the meeting to go forward
as set forth above, please monitor the website for any updates.
    For individuals with disabilities: For information on access or
services for individuals with disabilities, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
To request accommodate of a disability, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
preferably at least 10 business days prior to the

meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: September 8, 2020.
Julia Burch,
Designated Federal Officer, Mobile Source Technical Review
Subcommittee, Office of Transportation and Air Quality.
[FR Doc. 2020-20157 Filed 9-11-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P