[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 79 (Friday, April 24, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22947-22949]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09390]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0723; Airspace Docket No. 14-AGL-13]

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Highmore, SD

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at
Highmore, SD. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) at Highmore Municipal
Airport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and
management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for SIAPs at the
airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 8, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You
must identify the docket number FAA-2014-0744/Airspace Docket No. 14-
ACE-5, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments
through the

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public
docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final
disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office
(telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at
the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Shelby, Central Service
Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration,
Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone:
817-321-7740.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2014-0723/
Airspace Docket No. 14-AGL-13.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Central Service Center, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking<PHONE_NUMBER>, to
request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by
Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective
September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this proposed rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR), Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward
from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Highmore
Municipal Airport, Highmore, SD, to accommodate new standard instrument
approach procedures. Controlled airspace is needed for the safety and
management of IFR operations at the airport.
    Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would establish controlled airspace at Highmore Municipal
Airport, Highmore, SD.

Environmental Review

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Y,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and
effective September 15, 2014, is amended as follows:

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

* * * * *

AGL SD E5 Highmore, SD [New]

Highmore Municipal Airport, SD
    (Lat. 44[deg]32'40'' N., long. 99[deg]27'04'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Highmore Municipal Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on April 10, 2015.
Thomas L. Lattimer,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2015-09390 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4901-14-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 87 (Monday, May 8, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21348-21351]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09174]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2016-0296; A-1-FRL-9961-18-Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; ME; Decommissioning of Stage II Vapor Recovery
Systems

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Maine Department of Environmental Protection (Maine DEP). This
SIP revision includes regulatory amendments that repeal Stage II vapor
recovery requirements at gasoline dispensing facilities (GDFs) as of
January 1, 2012, with the mandate that all Stage II equipment be
decommissioned by January 1, 2013. Maine DEP's submission to EPA also
included a demonstration that such removal is consistent with the Clean
Air Act and relevant EPA guidance. This revision also includes
regulatory amendments that update Maine's testing and certain equipment
requirements for Stage I vapor recovery systems at GDFs. The intended
effect of this action is to propose approval of Maine's revised
gasoline vapor recovery regulations.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 7, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R01-OAR-2016-0296 by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``Docket Identification Number EPA-R01-OAR-2016-0296,''
Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning
Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA
02109-3912.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold,
Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem
Protection, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (mail code OEP05-2),
Boston, MA 02109-3912. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., excluding legal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-
2016-0296. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov, or
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Air Quality
Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you contact the contact listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays.
    In addition, copies of the state submittal are also available for
public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the
State Air Agency: Bureau of Air Quality Control, Department of
Environmental Protection, First Floor of the Tyson Building, Augusta
Mental Health Institute Complex, Augusta, ME 04333-0017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Rackauskas, Air Quality Planning
Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional
Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (mail code: OEP05-2), Boston,
MA 02109-3912, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number (617) 918-
0628, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
    Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. Background and Purpose
II. Summary of Maine's SIP Revision
III. EPA's Evaluation of Maine's SIP Revision
IV. Proposed Action
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On April 13, 2016, the Maine DEP submitted a revision to its State
Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP revision consists of Maine's revised
Chapter 118, Gasoline Dispensing Facilities Vapor Control, which has
been revised to require the decommissioning of Stage II vapor recovery
systems and to update Stage I vapor recovery testing requirements. The
SIP submittal also includes a demonstration that removal of Stage II
vapor recovery systems in Maine is consistent with the Clean Air Act
and relevant EPA guidance.
    Stage II and onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) systems are
two types of emission control systems that capture fuel vapors from
vehicle gas tanks during refueling. Stage II vapor recovery systems are
installed at GDFs and capture the refueling fuel vapors at the gasoline
pump. The system carries the vapors back to the underground storage
tank at the GDF to prevent the vapors from escaping to the atmosphere.
ORVR systems are carbon canisters installed directly on automobiles to
capture the fuel vapors evacuated from the gasoline tank before they
reach the nozzle. The fuel vapors captured in the carbon canisters are
then combusted in the

engine when the automobile is in operation.
    Stage II vapor recovery systems and vehicle ORVR systems were
initially both required by the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act
(CAA). Section 182(b)(3) of the CAA requires moderate and above ozone
nonattainment areas to implement Stage II vapor recovery programs.
Also, under CAA section 184(b)(2), states in the Ozone Transport Region
(OTR) are required to implement Stage II or comparable measures. CAA
section 202(a)(6) required EPA to promulgate regulations for ORVR for
light-duty vehicles (passenger cars). EPA adopted these requirements in
1994, at which point moderate ozone nonattainment areas were no longer
subject to the CAA section 182(b)(3) Stage II vapor recovery
requirements. ORVR equipment has been phased in for new passenger
vehicles beginning with model year 1998, and starting with model year
2001 for light-duty trucks and most heavy-duty gasoline powered
vehicles. ORVR equipment has been installed on nearly all new gasoline-
powered light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, and heavy-duty vehicles
since 2006.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control
Programs from State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable
Measures, Table A-1, August 7, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the phase-in of ORVR controls, Stage II has provided
volatile organic compound (VOC) reductions in ozone nonattainment areas
and certain attainment areas of the OTR. Congress recognized that ORVR
systems and Stage II vapor recovery systems would eventually become
largely redundant technologies, and provided authority to EPA to allow
states to remove Stage II vapor recovery programs from their SIPs after
EPA finds that ORVR is in ``widespread use.'' Effective May 16, 2012,
the date the final rule was published in the Federal Register (see 77
FR 28772), EPA determined that ORVR systems are in widespread use
nationwide for control of gasoline emissions during refueling of
vehicles at GDFs. As of the end of 2016, EPA estimates that more than
88 percent of gasoline refueling nationwide occurs with ORVR-equipped
vehicles.\2\ Thus, Stage II vapor recovery programs have become largely
redundant control systems and Stage II vapor recovery systems achieve
an ever declining emissions benefit as more ORVR-equipped vehicles
continue to enter the on-road motor vehicle fleet.\3\ In its May 16,
2012 rulemaking, EPA also exercised its authority under CAA section
202(a)(6) to waive certain federal statutory requirements for Stage II
vapor recovery systems at GDFs. This decision exempts all new ozone
nonattainment areas classified serious or above from the requirement to
adopt Stage II vapor recovery programs. Finally, EPA's May 16, 2012
rulemaking also noted that any state currently implementing Stage II
vapor recovery programs may submit SIP revisions that would allow for
the phase-out of Stage II vapor recovery systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control
Programs from State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable
Measures, Table A-1, August 7, 2012.
    \3\ In areas where certain types of vacuum-assist Stage II vapor
recovery systems are used, the differences in operational design
characteristics between ORVR and some configurations of these Stage
II vapor recovery systems result in the reduction of overall control
system efficiency compared to what could have been achieved relative
to the individual control efficiencies of either ORVR or Stage II
emissions from the vehicle fuel tank.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Stage I vapor recovery systems are systems that capture vapors
displaced from storage tanks at GDFs during gasoline tank truck
deliveries. When gasoline is delivered into an aboveground or
underground storage tank, vapors that were taking up space in the
storage tank are displaced by the gasoline entering the storage tank.
The Stage I vapor recovery systems route these displaced vapors into
the delivery truck's tank. Some vapors are vented when the storage tank
exceeds a specified pressure threshold, however the Stage I vapor
recovery systems greatly reduce the possibility of these displaced
vapors being released into the atmosphere.
    Stage I vapor recovery systems have been in place since the 1970s.
EPA has issued the following guidance regarding Stage I systems:
``Design Criteria for Stage I Vapor Control Systems--Gasoline Service
Stations'' (November 1975, EPA Online Publication 450R75102), which is
regarded as the control techniques guideline (CTG) for the control of
VOC emissions from this source category; and the EPA document ``Model
Volatile Organic Compound Rules for Reasonably Available Control
Technology'' (Staff Working Draft, June 1992) contains a model Stage I
regulation.

II. Summary of Maine's SIP Revision

    Maine adopted its Stage II Vapor Recovery Program in 1995 in order
to satisfy the requirements of sections 182(b)(3) and 184(b)(2) of the
CAA. The Maine Stage II vapor recovery program requirements were
codified in Maine's Chapter 118, Gasoline Dispensing Facilities Vapor
Control, and EPA approved the program into the Maine SIP on October 15,
1996 (61 FR 53636). Maine's rule required gasoline dispensing
facilities located in the counties of York, Cumberland, and Sagadahoc
to install Stage II vapor recovery systems.
    On April 13, 2016, Maine submitted a SIP revision consisting of its
revised Chapter 118. This revised rule requires GDFs to decommission
their Stage II vapor recovery systems as of January 1, 2013, and
contains an appendix detailing the requirements and procedures for
disabling the Stage II vapor recovery systems based on the Petroleum
Equipment Institute's Recommended Practices for Installation and
Testing of Vapor-Recovery Systems at Vehicle-Fueling Sites, PEI RP 300-
09, Section 14, Decommissioning Stage II Vapor Recovery Piping, 2009
edition.
    In addition, the revised regulation also includes requirements that
any GDF whose monthly throughput ever exceeds a threshold of 100,000
gallons per calendar month be subject to the requirements of 40 CFR
part 63 Subpart CCCCCC--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Source Category: Gasoline Dispensing
Facilities. Furthermore, any GDF that ever exceeds 100,000 gallons per
calendar month threshold will remain subject to the NESHAP requirements
even if the monthly throughput ever falls below this threshold.
    Maine's revised Chapter 118 also includes updated Stage I testing
procedures. The procedures now mirror the NESHAP testing requirements
for Stage I vapor recovery systems. Any GDF with a monthly throughput
over 100,000 gallons per month must perform an initial ``P/V Cap Test''
in accordance with California Air Resources Board's TP-201.1E. The test
must be repeated at least every three years thereafter. In addition,
any GDF with at least a 100,000 gallons per month throughput must
perform a pressure decay test every three years in accordance with
CARB's TP-201.3. Furthermore, all installation and function of Stage I
vapor recovery systems must be re-verified upon any major system
replacement or modification. Functional tests must be performed within
30 days upon request by the Maine DEP when inspections, records, or
other evidence show noncompliance with the state regulation. These
tests must be performed during normal business hours, with notification
to the Maine DEP provided in writing at least 5 days prior to the test.
All test results must be

provided to the Maine DEP within 30 days.
    The revised Chapter 118 also includes additional procedures for
ensuring that the hoses in the Stage I vapor balance system are
properly connected. The vapor hose must be connected to the cargo tank
and delivery elbow before connecting to the facility storage tank; the
cargo tank valve must be opened only after all vapor connections are
made, and closed before any vapor connections are disconnected; and the
vapor return hose must be disconnected from the facility storage tank
before it is disconnected from the cargo tank.
    The April 13, 2016 SIP submission also includes a narrative
demonstration supporting the discontinuation of the Maine Stage II
vapor recovery program. This demonstration, discussed in greater detail
below, consists of an analysis that the Stage II vapor recovery
controls provide only de minimis emission reductions due to the
prevalence of ORVR-equipped vehicles.

III. EPA's Evaluation of Maine's SIP Revision

    EPA has reviewed Maine's revised Chapter 118, Gasoline Dispensing
Facilities Vapor Control, and accompanying SIP narrative, and has
concluded that Maine's April 13, 2016 SIP revision is consistent with
EPA's widespread use rule (77 FR 28772, May 16, 2012) and with EPA's
``Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from
State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable Measures'' (EPA-
457/B-12-001; August 7, 2012), hereafter referred to as EPA's Guidance
Document.
    Maine's April 13, 2016 SIP revision includes a CAA section 110(l)
anti-back sliding demonstration based on the relevant equations
contained in EPA's Guidance Document. Maine's demonstration uses the
EPA Guidance Document's estimate that, in 2012, 71.4% of gasoline
refueling nationwide occurred with ORVR-equipped vehicles.\4\ According
to these calculations, the potential loss of refueling emission
reductions resulting from the removal of Stage II vapor recovery
systems in 2012 (the year leading up to Maine's January 1, 2013
decommissioning deadline) is between 6.2 and 9.2 percent, thus meeting
the 10 percent de minimis recommendation in EPA's Guidance Document.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPA Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control
Programs from State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable
Measures, Table A-1, August 7, 2012.
    \5\ This range of estimates for the potential loss of refueling
emission reductions results from the range of estimates for the in-
use control efficiency of Stage II vapor recovery systems. EPA's
Guidance Document suggests these efficiency values range from 0.60
to 0.75. See pages 10-11 of EPA's Guidance Document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, Maine's April 13, 2016 SIP revision also includes
calculations illustrating that the overall effect of removing the Stage
II vapor recovery program would be an increase of between 45 and 68
tons of VOC in 2012. EPA's 2011 National Emissions Inventory database
illustrates that Maine's anthropogenic VOC emissions for York,
Cumberland, and Sagadahoc Counties were about 48,484 tons (see https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/2011-national-emissions-inventory-nei-data); therefore the 45 to 68 annual tons of VOC
emissions increase calculated by Maine to have occurred in 2012 are
only about 0.2 to 0.4 percent of the total anthropogenic VOC emissions
in these three counties for that year. Also, these foregone emissions
reductions continue to diminish rapidly over time as ORVR phase-in
continues. That is, the estimated 45 to 68 tons of VOC in 2012 have
decreased since that time on an annual basis. Therefore, EPA believes
that the resulting temporary increases in VOC emissions that occurred
by removing the Stage II program will not interfere with attainment or
maintenance of the ozone NAAQS.
    With respect to Stage I vapor recovery requirements, Maine's
revised Chapter 118 is at least as stringent as the previously approved
version of the rule, thus meeting the CAA section 110(l) anti-back
sliding requirements. The revision includes updated instructions for
ensuring the hoses in the vapor balance system were properly connected,
and includes more comprehensive testing procedures than the previous
SIP-approved rule. This revision will help to ensure that the Stage I
vapor recovery equipment is working properly so that the expected
emission reductions occur. These testing procedures mirror the
guidelines for GDFs with a monthly throughput of 100,000 gallons or
more identified in 40 CFR 63, Subpart CCCCCC.

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Maine's April 13, 2016 SIP revision.
Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve Maine's revised Chapter 118,
Gasoline Dispensing Facilities Vapor Control, and incorporate it into
the Maine SIP. EPA is proposing to approve this SIP revision because it
meets all applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act and relevant EPA
guidance, and it will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of
the ozone NAAQS.
    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
notice or on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered
before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the
Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to the EPA
New England Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this
Federal Register.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference of the State of Maine's revised Chapter 118 described in
section IV of this notice. The EPA has made, and will continue to make,
these documents generally available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed 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 proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     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 Clean Air Act; 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation
land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: March 16, 2017.
Deborah A. Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2017-09174 Filed 5-5-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 30 (Wednesday, February 15, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10835-10837]
[FR Doc No: 2017-02998]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80004; File No. SR-FINRA-2016-047]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend FINRA Rules To Conform to the Commission's Proposed Amendment to
Commission Rule 15c6-1(a) and the Industry-Led Initiative To Shorten
the Standard Settlement Cycle for Most Broker-Dealer Transactions From
T+3 to T+2

February 9, 2017.

I. Introduction

    On December 14, 2016, 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 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to conform its rules to an amendment proposed by
the Commission to Rule 15c6-1(a) under the Act to shorten the standard
settlement cycle for most broker-dealer transactions from three
business days after the trade date (``T+3'') to two business days after
the trade date (``T+2'').\3\ The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on December 28, 2016.\4\ The Commission
received three comment letters on the proposed rule change.\5\ This
order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78962 (Sep. 28,
2016), 81 FR 69240 (Oct. 5, 2016) (Amendment to Securities
Transaction Settlement Cycle) (File No. S7-22-16) (T+2 Proposing
Release'').
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79648 (Dec. 21,
2016), 81 FR 95705.
    \5\ See Letters to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission from
Mike Nicholas, Chief Executive Officer, Bond Dealers of America
(``BDA''), dated Jan. 18, 2017 (``BDA Letter''), Manisha Kimmel,
Chief Regulatory Officer, Wealth Management, Thomson Reuters, dated
Jan. 19, 2017, and Thomas F. Price, Managing Director, Operations,
Technology & BCP, Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association (``SIFMA''), dated Jan. 19, 2017 (``SIFMA Letter '').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA Rules 2341 (Investment Company
Securities), 11140 (Transactions in Securities ``Ex-Dividend,'' ``Ex-
Rights'' or ``Ex-Warrants''), 11150 (Transactions ``Ex-Interest'' in
Bonds Which Are Dealt in ``Flat''), 11210 (Sent by Each Party), 11320
(Dates of Delivery), 11620 (Computation of Interest), 11810 (Buy-In
Procedures and Requirements), and 11860 (COD Orders), to conform to the
Commission's proposed amendment to Rule 15c6-1(a) under the Act that
would shorten the standard settlement cycle for most broker-dealer
transactions from T+3 to T+2.
    FINRA Rule 2341(m) requires members, including underwriters, that
engage in direct retail transactions for investment company shares to
transmit payments received from customers for the purchase of
investment company shares to the payee by the end of the third business
day after receipt of a customer's order to purchase the shares, or by
the end of one business day after receipt of a customer's payment for
the shares, whichever is later. FINRA is proposing to amend Rule
2341(m) to change the three-business day transmittal requirement to two
business days, while retaining the one-business day alternative.
    FINRA Rule 11140(b)(1) concerns the determination of normal ex-
dividend and ex-warrants dates for certain types of dividends and
distributions. Currently, with respect to cash dividends or
distributions, or stock dividends, and the issuance or distribution of
warrants, which are less than 25% of the value of the subject security,
if the definitive information is received sufficiently in advance of
the record date, the date designated as the ``ex-dividend date'' is the
second business day preceding the record date if the record date falls
on a business day, or the third business day preceding the record date
if the record date falls on a day designated by FINRA's UPC Committee
as a non-delivery day. Under the proposal, the ``ex-dividend date''
would be the first business day preceding the record date if the record
date falls on a business day, or the second business day preceding the
record date if the record date falls on a day designated by FINRA's UPC
Committee as a non-delivery date.
    FINRA Rule 11150(a) concerns the determination of normal ex-
interest dates for certain types of transactions. Currently, all
transactions, except ``cash'' transactions, in bonds or similar
evidences of indebtedness which are traded ``flat'' are ``ex-interest''
on the second business day preceding the record date if the record date
falls on a business day, on the third business day preceding the record
date if the record date falls on a day other than a business day, and
on the third business day preceding the date on which an interest
payment is to be made if no record date has been fixed. Under the
proposal, these transactions would be ``ex-interest'' on the first
business day preceding the record date if the record date falls on a
business day, on the second business day preceding the record date if
the record date falls on a day other than a business day, and on the
second business day preceding the date on which an interest payment is
to be made if no record date has been fixed.
    FINRA Rules 11210(c) and (d) set forth ``DK'' procedures using
``Don't Know Notices'' and other forms of notices, respectively.\6\
FINRA Rule 11210(c) currently provides that, when a party to a
transaction sends a comparison or confirmation of a trade, but does not
receive a comparison or confirmation or a signed DK from the contra-
member by the close of four business days following the trade date of
the transaction, the party may use the procedures set forth in the
rule. FINRA proposes to shorten the ``four business days'' time period
to one business day. FINRA Rule 11210(c)(2)(A) currently provides that
a contra-member has four business days after the ``Don't Know Notice''
is received to either confirm or DK the transaction in accordance with
FINRA Rule 11210(c)(2)(B) or (C). FINRA proposes to shorten the ``four
business days'' time period to two business days.\7\ FINRA Rule
11210(c)(3) currently provides that if the confirming member does not
receive a response from the contra-member by the close of four business
days after receipt by the confirming member the fourth copy of

the ``Don't Know Notice'' if delivered by messenger, or the post office
receipt if delivered by mail, such shall constitute a DK and the
confirming member shall have no further liability for the trade. FINRA
proposes to shorten the ``four business days'' time period to two
business days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ FINRA Rule 11210 does not apply to transactions that clear
through the National Securities Clearing Corporation or other
clearing organizations registered under the Act. See FINRA Rule
11210(a)(4).
    \7\ FINRA also proposes to make non-substantive, formatting
changes to cross-references to reflect FINRA Manual style
convention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA proposes similar changes to FINRA Rule 11210(d). FINRA Rule
11210(d) currently provides that, when a party to a transaction sends a
comparison or confirmation of a trade, but does not receive a
comparison or confirmation or a signed DK from the contra-member by the
close of four business days following the date of the transaction, the
party may use the procedures set forth in the rule. FINRA proposes to
shorten the ``four business days'' time period to one business day.
FINRA Rule 11210(d)(5) currently provides that if the confirming member
does not receive a response in the form of a notice from the contra-
member by the close of four business days after receipt of the
confirming member's notice, such shall constitute a DK and the
confirming member shall have no further liability. FINRA proposes to
shorten the ``four business days'' time period to two business days.
    FINRA Rule 11320 prescribes delivery dates for various types of
transactions. FINRA Rule 11320(b) currently provides that in connection
with a transaction ``regular way,'' delivery is made at the office of
the purchaser on, but not before, the third business day following the
date of the transaction. Under the proposal, delivery would be required
to be made on, but not before, the second business day following the
date of the transaction. FINRA Rule 11320(c) currently provides in part
that, in connection with a transaction ``seller's option,'' delivery
may be made by the seller on any business day after the third business
day following the date of transaction and prior to the expiration of
the option, provided the seller delivers at the office of the
purchaser, on a business day preceding the day of delivery, written
notice of intention to deliver. Under the proposal, delivery may be
made by the seller on any business day after the second business day
following the date of the transaction and prior to expiration of the
option.
    FINRA Rule 11620 governs the computation of interest. FINRA Rule
11620(a) currently provides in part that, in the settlement of
contracts in interest-paying securities other than for ``cash,'' there
shall be added to the dollar price interest at the rate specified in
the security, which shall be computed up to but not including the third
business day following the date of the transaction. Under the proposal,
the interest would be computed up to but not including the second
business day following the date of the transaction.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ FINRA also proposes to capitalize certain words in the title
of FINRA Rule 11620(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA 11810(j)(1)(A) sets forth the circumstances under which a
receiving member may deliver a Liability Notice to the delivering
member as an alternative to the close-out procedures set forth in FINRA
11810(b)-(h). Currently, when the parties to a contract are not both
participants in a registered clearing agency that has an automated
service for notifying a failing party of the liability that will be
attendant to a failure to deliver, the notice must be issued using
written or comparable electronic media having immediate receipt
capabilities ``no later than one business day prior to the latest time
and the date of the offer or other event'' in order to obtain the
protection provided by the rule. Under the proposal, the notice must be
``sent as soon as practicable but not later than two hours prior to the
cutoff time set forth in the instructions on a specific offer or other
event'' in order to obtain the protection provided by the rule.
    FINRA Rule 11860(a) concerns various procedures regarding collect
on delivery (``COD'') or payment on delivery orders. FINRA is proposing
to amend Rule 11860(a)(4)(A) to provide that the time period for a
customer buying COD to furnish instructions to the agent will be no
later than the close of business on the first business day after the
date of execution of the trade, rather than the close of business on
the second business day.
    FINRA represents that it will announce the effective date of the
proposed rule change in an Equity Regulatory Alert, which date would
correspond with the industry-led transition to a T+2 standard
settlement, and the effective date of the Commission's proposed
amendment to Rule 15c6-1(a) under the Act.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    After careful review of the proposed rule change and the comments,
the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that
are applicable to a national securities association.\10\ Specifically,
the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\11\ which requires that the rules of a
national securities association be designed, among other things, to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and to protect
investors and the public interest. As noted above, the Commission
received three comment letters on the proposed rule change.\12\ All
comment letters express support for Commission approval of the proposed
rule change.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
    \12\ See supra note 5.
    \13\ One of the commenters requests guidance from FINRA with
respect to FINRA Rule 11210(c) to permit the use of electronic means
to communicate DK notices. The commenter notes that, currently,
FINRA Rule 11210(c)(1) requires that such notices be sent ``by
certified mail, return receipt requested, or messenger.'' See SIFMA
Letter, at 3. The Commission notes that this request is beyond the
scope of the current proposed rule change. However, the Commission
notes that FINRA could work with the commenter and other market
participants to determine whether changes to the communication
methods specified in FINRA Rule 11210(c) would be appropriate. One
commenter expressed concern with how the proposed amendments to Rule
15c6-1(a) may affect Reg. T. The Commission notes that this comment
pertains to the Commission's proposed rule and not directly to the
proposal. See BDA Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that the proposal would amend FINRA rules to
conform to the amendment that the Commission has proposed to Rule 15c6-
1(a) under the Act \14\ and support a move to a T+2 standard settlement
cycle. In the T+2 Proposing Release the Commission stated its
preliminary belief that shortening the standard settlement cycle from
T+3 to T+2 will result in a reduction of credit, market, and liquidity
risk,\15\ and as a result a reduction in systemic risk for U.S. market
participants.\16\ The Commission also notes that it has not yet adopted
the proposed amendment to Rule 15c6-1(a),

and that FINRA has, accordingly, not proposed to make its amended rules
effective at present. Instead, FINRA has proposed to announce the
effective date of the proposed rule change in an Equity Regulatory
Alert. The Commission expects that the effective date of the proposed
rule change would correspond with the compliance date of any amendment
to Rule 15c6-1(a) under the Act that is adopted by the Commission. The
Commission notes that, in October 2014, Depository Trust and Clearing
Corporation (``DTCC''), in collaboration with the Investment Company
Institute, SIFMA, and other market participants, formed an Industry
Steering Group (``ISC'') and an industry working group to facilitate
the transition to a T+2 settlement cycle for U.S. trades in equities,
corporate and municipal bonds, and unit investment trusts.\17\ The ISC
has identified September 5, 2017, as the target date for the transition
to a T+2 settlement cycle to occur.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See supra note 3.
    \15\ Credit risk refers to the risk that the credit quality of
one party to a transaction will deteriorate to the extent that it is
unable to fulfill its obligations to its counterparty on settlement
date. Market risk refers to the risk that the value of securities
bought and sold will change between trade execution and settlement
such that the completion of the trade would result in a financial
loss. Liquidity risk describes the risk that an entity will be
unable to meet financial obligations on time due to an inability to
deliver funds or securities in the form required though it may
possess sufficient financial resources in other forms. See T+2
Proposing Release, supra note 3, 81 FR at 69241 n. 3.
    \16\ See id., 81 FR at 69241.
    \17\ See Press Release, DTCC, Industry Steering Committee and
Working Group Formed to Drive Implementation of T+2 in the U.S.
(Oct. 2014), http://www.dtcc.com/news/2014/october/16/ust2.aspx.
    \18\ See Press Release, ISC, US T+2 ISC Recommends Move to
Shorter Settlement Cycle On September 5, 2017 (Mar. 7, 2016), http://www.ust2.com/pdfs/T2-ISC-recommends-shorter-settlement-030716.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons noted above, the Commission finds that the proposal
is consistent with the requirements of the Act and would foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and protect investors and the public interest.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\19\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2016-047), be and
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-02998 Filed 2-14-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 4, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 86)]
[Notices]
[Page 26358-26359]
[DOCID:fr04my06-46]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-RCRA-2005-0016; FRL-8166-6 ]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; Reporting Requirements Under
EPA's National Partnership for Environmental Priorities (Renewal), EPA
ICR Number 2076.02, OMB Control Number 2050-0190

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. This ICR is scheduled to expire on April 30, 2006.
Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
This ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its
estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before June 5, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
RCRA-2005-0016, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our

preferred method), or by mail to: RCRA Docket (5305T), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB by mail to: Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention:
Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Newman Smith, Office of Solid Waste
(5302W), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: 703-
308-8433; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On December 20, 2005 (70 FR 75457), EPA sought comments on
this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any
additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB
within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2005-0016, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the RCRA Docket in

the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for RCRA Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov
, to submit or view public comments, access the

index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then

key in the docket ID number identified above. Please note that EPA's
policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in
paper, will be made available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov
 as EPA receives them and without change, unless the

comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose
public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information
about the electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

    Title: Reporting Requirements Under EPA's National Partnership For
Environmental Priorities (Renewal)
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR No. 2076.02, OMB Control No. 2050-0190
    ICR Status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on April 30,
2006. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or
sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending
at OMB. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal
Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed
either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate
means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if
applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA
regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: EPA currently has an ongoing national program that,
through source reduction, reuse, and recycling, encourages a reduction
in use or the minimization of release of hazardous chemicals.
Participation in the National Partnership for Environmental Priorities
(NPEP) (previously the National Waste Minimization Partnership Program)
is completely voluntary. Participation begins when the Enrollment Form
is submitted and accepted by EPA. The form asks for basic site
identification information as well as information on the company's
chemical reduction goals under the program.
    Once in the program, partners will also have an opportunity to
complete and submit a Success Story when they have accomplished steps
toward reaching the goal(s) established during their enrollment in the
program. The Success Story also serves as the application for the NPEP
Achievement Award. These Success Stories will be available on EPA's
National Waste Minimization Program website. Each success story will
describe a partner's waste minimization techniques, implementation
problems, lessons learned, benefits, and relevant implications. These
forms will enable the Agency to establish a partner's progress and the
overall success of the program. They will also allow the Agency to
recognize partner accomplishments in a formal manner, if appropriate
(e.g., at a recognition ceremony or by congratulatory letter).
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting burden for this
collection of information is estimated to average 16 hours per response
for the Enrollment Form and 9 hours per response for the Success
Stories. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by
this action are those which generate, store, and treat hazardous waste.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 163.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 642.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $0.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 2,593 hours in the
total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of
Approved ICR Burdens. The reason for the decrease is because in the
original ICR EPA overestimated the number of partners that would be
enrolled in the program. EPA also overestimated the amount of time it
would take an enrollee to fill out and submit the enrollment form. For
this renewal, EPA was able to canvas partners for more realistic burden
estimates.

    Dated: April 24, 2006.
Oscar Morales,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. E6-6749 Filed 5-3-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 132)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 39251-39256]
[DOCID:fr09jy08-16]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0475; FRL-8367-1]

Spirotetramat; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for combined residues
of spirotetramat and its metabolites BYI 08330-enol, BYI 08330-
ketohydroxy, BYI08330-enol-, and BYI 08330-mono-hydroxy, calculated as
spirotetramat equivalents, in or on vegetable, tuberous and corm,
subgroup 1C; potato, flakes; onion, bulb, subgroup 3A-07; vegetable,
leafy, except brassica, group 4; brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A;
brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B; vegetable, fruiting, group 8;
vegetable, cucurbit, group 9; fruit, citrus, group 10; citrus, oil;
fruit, pome, group 11; fruit, stone, group 12; nut, tree, group 14;
almond, hulls; small fruit vine climbing subgroup, except fuzzy
kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F; grape; raisin; strawberry; hop, dried
cones; and for the combined residues of spirotetramat and its
metabolite BYI 08330-enol, calculated as spirotetramat equivalents, in
or on milk; and meat, fat, and meat byproducts of cattle, goat; sheep,
and horse. Bayer CropScience requested these tolerances under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective July 9, 2008. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before September 8, 2008,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0475. To access the
electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced
Search,'' then ``Docket Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where
indicated and select the ``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on
the regulations.gov website to view the docket index or access
available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the
docket index available in regulations.gov. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or,
if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in
Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr.,
Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

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

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document?

    In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this Federal
Register document through the electronic docket at http://
www.regulations.gov, you may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access a
frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at
40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR
site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 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-2007-0475 in the subject line on the first page of
your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or
delivered to the Hearing Clerk as required by 40 CFR part 178 on or
before September 8, 2008.
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit this copy, identified by docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0475, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Petition for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of July 15, 2007 (FR 40877) (FRL-8137-1),
EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 6F7119)
by Bayer CropScience LLC, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27709 . The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended
by establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide
spirotetramat, (cis-3-(2,5-dimethlyphenyl)-8-methoxy-2-oxo-1-azaspiro
[4.5] dec-3-en-4-yl-ethyl carbonate, and its metabolite cis-3-(2,5-
dimethylphenyl)-4-hydroxy-8-methoxy-1-azaspiro4.5dec-3-en-2-one,
calculated as spirotetramat equivalents, in or on the raw agricultural
commodities vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C at 1.0 parts per
million (ppm); potato, granules/flakes at 2.5 ppm; onions, dry bulb,
subgroup 3A at 0.3 ppm; vegetables, leafy, except brassica, group 4 at
5.0 ppm brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A at 3.0 ppm; brassica,
leafy greens, subgroup 5B at 16.0 ppm; vegetables, fruiting, group 8 at
1.0 ppm; tomato, dried pomace at 2.5 ppm; vegetable, cucurbit, group 9
at 0.2 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10 at 0.5 ppm; citrus, oil at 4.0 ppm;
fruit, pome, group 11 at 0.5 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12 at 2.0 ppm;
nut, tree, group 14 at 0.5 ppm; almond, hulls at 9.0 ppm; grape at 1.0
ppm; grape, raisin at 2.5 ppm; hop at 10.0 ppm; strawberry at 0.5 ppm;
cattle, goat, hog, sheep and horse, meat at 0.01 ppm; cattle, goat,
hog, sheep and horse, fat at 0.01 ppm; cattle, goat, hog, sheep and
horse, liver at 0.01 ppm; cattle, goat, hog, sheep and horse, meat
byproducts, except liver at 0.02 ppm. That notice referenced a summary
of the petition prepared by Bayer CropScience, the registrant, which is
available to the public in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov.
There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
revised tolerance expression for vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup
1C; potato, granules/flakes; vegetables, leafy, except brassica, group
4; brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A; brassica, leafy greens,
subgroup 5B; vegetables, fruiting, group 8; tomato, dried pomace;
vegetable, cucurbit, group 9; fruit, citrus, group 10; citrus, oil;
fruit, pome, group 11; fruit, stone, group 12; nut, tree, group 14;
small fruit vine climbing subgroup, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup
13-07F; grape; raisin; strawberry; cattle, goat, hog, sheep and horse,
meat; cattle, goat, hog, sheep and horse, fat; cattle, goat, hog, sheep
and horse, liver; cattle, goat, hog, sheep and horse, meat byproducts,
except liver. A tolerance for milk was also included. The reasons for
these changes are explained in Unit IV.D.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors
specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to
make a determination on aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for
tolerances for combined residues of spirotetramat. EPA's assessment of
exposures and risks associated with establishing tolerances 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 acute, short-term, and long-term toxicity of spirotetramat is
well understood. Spirotetramat technical demonstrated moderate to low
acute toxicity via the oral, dermal, and inhalation routes.
Spirotetramat is non-irritating to the skin, although it is an irritant
to the eyes and exhibits a skin-sensitization potential in animals and
humans. The thyroid and thymus glands were target organs in oral
subchronic toxicity studies in the dog; whereas, the testes-
epididymides were the target organs following subchronic oral treatment
of rats. Long-term toxicity studies reflected the short-term
toxicological profile of spirotetramat with the thymus and thyroid as
target organs following one-year oral exposure of dogs. Chronic
exposure of rats to spirotetramat also reflected the subchronic pattern
of testicular toxicity. No evidence of tumor formation was found
following long-term studies of rodents, and spirotetramat was also
negative for mutagenicity and clastogenicity in several standard in
vivo and in vitro assays.
    The reproductive and developmental toxicity potential of
spirotetramat was tested in rats and rabbits. In addition to

testicular histopathology observed following subchronic and chronic
exposure of rats to spirotetramat, male reproductive toxicity was
recorded in the two-generation reproductive toxicity study. However,
development of the sexual organs of offspring (balano-preputial
separation, vaginal opening) was unaffected. In an investigative study
designed to explore the time of onset of testicular toxicity in rats,
decreased epididymal sperm counts were noted after 10 days of exposure.
Therefore, repeated dosing with spirotetramat is necessary to produce
male reproductive toxicity in rats. Similar effects were observed after
repeated dosing with the enol metabolite of spirotetramat.
Developmental toxicity was not observed with spirotetramat in the
absence of maternal toxicity in either the rat or rabbit.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by spirotetramat as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://
www.regulations.gov in document Spirotetramat Human Health Risk
Assessment for Proposed Uses on Citrus (Crop Group 10); Cucurbit
Vegetables (Crop Group 9); Fruiting Vegetables (Crop Group 8); Grape
(Crop Subgroup 13F); Hops; Leafy Brassica Vegetables (Crop Group 5);
Leafy Non-Brassica Vegetables (Crop Group 4); Pome Fruit (Crop Group
11); Potato and Other Tuberous and Corm Vegetables (Crop Subgroup 1C);
Stone Fruit (Crop Group 12); Tree Nuts (Crop Group 14); Onions;
Strawberries; Livestock Commodities; and Greenhouses/Nurseries, pages
38-58 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0475.

B. Toxicological Endpoints

    For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, a toxicological point of departure (POD) is
identified as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk
assessment. The POD may be defined as the highest dose at which no
adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) in the toxicology study
identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment. However, if a
NOAEL cannot be determined, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of
concern are identified (the LOAEL) or a Benchmark Dose (BMD) approach
is sometimes used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors (UFs)
are used in conjunction with the POD to take into account uncertainties
inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and
in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population
as well as other unknowns. Safety is assessed for acute and chronic
dietary risks by comparing aggregate food and water exposure to the
pesticide to the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic
population adjusted dose (cPAD). The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. Aggregate short-term,
intermediate-term, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing
food, water, and residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the
margin of exposure (MOE) called for by the product of all applicable
UFs is not exceeded. This latter value is referred to as the Level of
Concern (LOC).
    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
greater than that expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/
pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for spirotetramat used for
human risk assessment can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in
document Spirotetramat Human-Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Uses
on Citrus (Crop Group 10); Cucurbit Vegetables (Crop Group 9); Fruiting
Vegetables (Crop Group 8); Grape (Crop Subgroup 13F); Hops; Leafy
Brassica Vegetables (Crop Group 5); Leafy Non-Brassica Vegetables (Crop
Group 4); Pome Fruit (Crop Group 11); Potato and Other Tuberous and
Corm Vegetables (Crop Subgroup 1C); Stone Fruit (Crop Group 12); Tree
Nuts (Crop Group 14); Onions; Strawberries; Livestock Commodities; and
Greenhouses/Nurseries, page 21 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-
0475.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to spirotetramat, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances. EPA assessed dietary exposures from
spirotetramat 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 one-day or single exposure.
    In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption
information from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by
Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed 100
percent crop treated (PCT), and tolerance-level residues for all foods.
Empirical and DEEMTM (ver. 7.81) default processing factors
were used for processed commodities. Drinking water was incorporated
directly in the dietary assessment using the acute concentration for
surface water generated by the First Index Resevoir Screening Tool
(FIRST) model.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996
and 1998 CSFII. As to residue levels in food, EPA conducted a
conservative chronic dietary assessment assuming average field-trial
residues, empirical and DEEMTM (ver. 7.81) default
processing factors, and 100% CT. Drinking water was incorporated
directly into the dietary assessment using the chronic concentration
for surface water generated by the FIRST model.
    iii. Cancer. Spirotetramat was classified as ``not likely to be
carcinogenic to humans.'' Therefore, a quantitative cancer dietary
exposure assessment was not performed.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for spirotetramat and its metabolites in drinking water.
These simulation models take into account data on the physical,
chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of spirotetramat. Further
information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide
exposure assessment can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/
water/index.htm.
    Based on the FIRST and Screening Concentration in Ground Water
(SCI-GROW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs)
of spirotetramat and its metabolites:
    i. For acute exposures are estimated to be 0.212 parts per billion
(ppb) for surface water and 3.96x10-4 ppb for ground water;
    ii. For chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated
to be 1.37x10-3 ppb for surface water and 3.96x10-
4 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. a. For acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 0.212 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water. b. For chronic dietary

risk assessment, the water concentration of value 1.37x10-3
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).
    Spirotetramat 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 spirotetramat to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and spirotetramat does not appear
to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
spirotetramat does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at http://
www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(c) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA safety
factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is no evidence of
increased susceptibility of rat or rabbit to prenatal or postnatal
exposure to spirotetramat. In the rat developmental toxicity study,
toxicity to offspring was observed at the same dose as maternal
toxicity, which was also the limit dose. In the developmental toxicity
study in the rabbit, only maternal toxicity was observed. In both
reproductive toxicity studies, toxicity to offspring (decreased body
weight) was observed at the same dose as parental toxicity. Therefore,
no evidence of increased susceptibility of offspring was found across
four relevant toxicity studies with spirotetramat.
    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 spirotetramat is complete.
    ii. There is no indication that spirotetramat is a neurotoxic
chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study
or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity. Clinical signs of
toxicity and decreased motor activity were observed in adult rats
following a single dose of spirotetramat in the acute neurotoxicity
study in the rat; however, these effects only attained statistical
significance at high doses and were not observed at the limit dose in
the acute oral toxicity study in the rat. There is no concern for
neurotoxicity with spirotetramat in the developing animal based on the
fact that brain dilation in the one-year dog study is most likely a
congenital anomaly that was not observed in any other study in the
spirotetramat database, and the fact that the structurally related
compounds spirodiclofen and spiromesifen are not neurotoxic in adults
or young.
    iii. There is no evidence that spirotetramat results in increased
susceptibility in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal developmental
studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction study.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground water and surface water modeling
used to assess exposure to spirotetramat in drinking water. These
assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by
spirotetramat.
    v. There are no registered or proposed uses of spirotetramat which
could result in residential exposure.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic pesticide exposures are
safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the aPAD and cPAD.
The aPAD and cPAD represent the highest safe exposures, taking into
account all appropriate SFs. EPA calculates the aPAD and cPAD by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the probability of additional cancer cases given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-term, intermediate-term, and
chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate
food, water, and residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the
margin of exposure (MOE) called for by the product of all applicable
UFs is not exceeded.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to spirotetramat will occupy 10% 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
spirotetramat from food and water will utilize 77% of the cPAD for
(children 1-2 years old) the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. There are no residential uses for spirotetramat.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
    Spirotetramat is not registered for any use patterns that would
result in residential exposure. Therefore, the short-term aggregate
risk is the sum of the risk from exposure to spirotetramat through food
and water and will not be greater than the chronic aggregate risk.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level).
    Spirotetramat is not registered for any use patterns that would
result in intermediate-term residential exposure. Therefore, the
intermediate-term aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from exposure
to spirotetramat through food and water, which has already been
addressed, and will not be greater than the chronic aggregate risk.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population.Spirotetramat has been
classified as ``Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans.''
Spirotetramat is not expected to pose a cancer risk.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that

no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to spirotetramat residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    If the method is not published in the Pesticide Analytical Manual,
but has been approved by EPA, use the following:
    Adequate enforcement methodology liquid chromatography/mass
spectrometry/mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) is available to enforce the
tolerance expression. The method may be requested from: Chief,
Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes
Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    There are no CODEX or Mexican maximum residue limits (MRLs) for
spirotetramat. Canadian MRLs have been established and are harmonized
with the US.

C. Response to Comments

    There were no comments received in response to the notice of
filing.

D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    Based on residue chemistry data submitted with this petition,
several petitioned-for tolerances were revised, and it was considered
necessary to establish a tolerance for milk. A chart listing the
petitioned-for tolerances and EPA recommended tolerances can be found
at http://www.regulations.gov in document Spirotetramat Human Health
Risk Assessment for Proposed Uses on Citrus (Crop Group 10); Cucurbit
Vegetables (Crop Group 9); Fruiting Vegetables (Crop Group 8); Grape
(Crop Subgroup 13F); Hops; Leafy Brassica Vegetables (Crop Group 5);
Leafy Non-Brassica Vegetables (Crop Group 4); Pome Fruit (Crop Group
11); Potato and Other Tuberous and Corm Vegetables (Crop Subgroup 1C);
Stone Fruit (Crop Group 12); Tree Nuts (Crop Group 14); Onions;
Strawberries; Livestock Commodities; and Greenhouses/Nurseries page 65
in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0475.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for combined residues of
spirotetramat (cis-3-(2,5-dimethlyphenyl)-8-methoxy-2-oxo-1-azaspiro
[4.5] dec-3-en-4-yl-ethyl carbonate]) and its metabolites BYI 08330-
enol (cis-3-(2,5-dimethylphenyl)-4-hydroxy-8-methoxy-1-azaspiro 4.5
dec-3-en-2-one), BYI 08330-ketohydroxy (cis-3-(2,5-dimethylphenyl)-3-
hydroxy-8-methoxy-1-azaspiro 4.5 decane-2,4-dione), BYI08330-enol-Glc
(cis-3-(2,5-dimethylphenyl)-8-methoxy-2-oxo-1-azaspiro 4.5 dec-3-en-4-
yl beta-D-glucopyranoside), and BYI 08330-mono-hydroxy (cis-3-(2,5-
dimethylphenyl)-4-hydroxy-8-methoxy-1-azaspiro 4.5 decan-2-one),
calculated as spirotetramat equivalents, in or on the following
commodities: Fruit, citrus, group 10 at 0.60 ppm; citrus, oil at 6.0
ppm; vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group 4 at 9.0 ppm; fruit,
pome, group 11 at 0.70 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12 at 4.5 ppm; small
fruit vine climbing subgroup, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F
at 1.3 ppm; grape, raisin at 3.0 ppm; strawberry at 0.40 ppm; onion,
bulb, subgroup 3A-07 at 0.30 ppm; vegetable, fruiting, group 8 at 2.5
ppm; vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 at 0.30 ppm; brassica, head and stem,
subgroup 5A at 2.5 ppm; brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B at 8.0 ppm;
vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C at 0.60 ppm; potato, flakes
at 1.6 ppm; nut, tree, group 14 at 0.25 ppm; almond, hulls at 9.0 ppm;
hop, dried cones at 10 ppm. Tolerances are also established for the
combined residues of spirotetramat (cis-3-(2,5-dimethlyphenyl)-8-
methoxy-2-oxo-1-azaspiro 4.5 dec-3-en-4-yl-ethyl carbonate) and its
metabolite BYI 08330-enol (cis-3-(2,5-dimethylphenyl)-4-hydroxy-8-
methoxy-1-azaspiro 4.5 dec-3-en-2-one), calculated as spirotetramat
equivalents, in/on the following livestock commodities: Milk at 0.01
ppm; cattle, meat at 0.02 ppm; cattle, fat at 0.02 ppm; cattle, meat
byproducts at 0.02 ppm; goat, meat at 0.02 ppm; goat, fat at 0.02 ppm;
goat, meat byproducts at 0.02 ppm; sheep, meat at 0.02 ppm; sheep, fat
at 0.02 ppm; sheep, meat byproducts at 0.02 ppm; horse, meat at 0.02
ppm; horse, fat at 0.02 ppm; horse, meat byproducts at 0.02 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is
not subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information
collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any special
considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: June 24, 2008.
Debra Edwards,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Section 180.641 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  180.641  Spirotetramat; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. (1) Tolerances are established for residues of the
insecticide spirotetramat (cis-3-(2,5-dimethlyphenyl)-8-methoxy-2-oxo-
1-azaspiro [4.5] dec-3-en-4-yl-ethyl carbonate) and its metabolites BYI
08330-enol (cis-3-(2,5-dimethylphenyl)-4-hydroxy-8-methoxy-1-azaspiro
4.5 dec-3-en-2-one), BYI 08330-ketohydroxy (cis-3-(2,5-dimethylphenyl)-
3-hydroxy-8-methoxy-1-azaspiro 4.5 decane-2,4-dione), BYI08330-enol-Glc
(cis-3-(2,5-dimethylphenyl)-8-methoxy-2-oxo-1-azaspiro 4.5 dec-3-en-4-
yl beta-D-glucopyranoside), and BYI 08330-mono-hydroxy (cis-3-(2,5-
dimethylphenyl)-4-hydroxy-8-methoxy-1-azaspiro 4.5 decan-2-one),
calculated as spirotetramat equivalents, in or on the following raw
agricultural commodities:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Commodity                        Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almond, hulls........................................                9.0
Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A.................                2.5
Brassica, leafy, subgroup 5B.........................                8.0
Citrus, oil..........................................                6.0
Fruit, citrus, group 10..............................               0.60
Fruit, pome, group 11................................               0.70
Fruit, stone, group 12...............................                4.5
Grape, raisin........................................                3.0
Hop, dried cones.....................................               10.0
Nut, tree, group 14..................................               0.25
Onion, bulb, subgroup 3A-07..........................                0.3
Potato, flakes.......................................                1.6
Small fruit vine climbing subgroup, except fuzzy                     1.3
 kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F..........................
Strawberry...........................................               0.40
Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9.........................               0.30
Vegetable, fruiting, group 8.........................                2.5
Vegetable, leafy, except Brassica, group 4...........                9.0
Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C                           0.60
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Tolerances are also established for the combined residues of
spirotetramat (cis-3-(2,5-dimethlyphenyl)-8-methoxy-2-oxo-1-azaspiro
[4.5] dec-3-en-4-yl-ethyl carbonate) and its metabolite BYI 08330-enol
(cis-3-(2,5-dimethylphenyl)-4-hydroxy-8-methoxy-1-azaspiro 4.5 dec-3-
en-2-one), calculated as spirotetramat equivalents, in or on the
following commodities:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Commodity                        Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cattle, fat..........................................               0.02
Cattle, meat.........................................               0.02
Cattle, meat byproducts..............................               0.02
Goat, fat............................................               0.02
Goat, meat...........................................               0.02
Goat, meat byproducts................................               0.02
Horse, fat...........................................               0.02
Horse, meat..........................................               0.02
Horse, meat byproducts...............................               0.02
Milk.................................................               0.01
Sheep, fat...........................................               0.02
Sheep, meat..........................................               0.02
Sheep, meat byproducts                                              0.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]
    (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. [Resereved]
    (d) Indirect or inadvertant residues. [Reserved]

[FR Doc. E8-15521 Filed 7-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S