[Federal Register: September 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 187)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 56388-56392]
[DOCID:fr27se06-16]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0058; FRL-8091-5]

Ethaboxam; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of
ethaboxam in or on grape at 6.0 parts per million (ppm), with no U.S.
registration. Landis International, Inc., agent for LG Life Sciences,
Ltd. requested this tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of
1996 (FQPA).

DATES: This regulation is effective September 27, 2006. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before November 27, 2006,
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-2005-0058. All documents in the
docket are listed in the index for the docket. 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 Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive,
Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bryant Crowe, 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:
     Crop production (NAICS 111), e.g., agricultural workers;
greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; farmers.
     Animal production (NAICS 112), e.g., cattle ranchers and
farmers, dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers.
     Food manufacturing (NAICS 311), e.g., agricultural
workers; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers;
ranchers; pesticide applicators.
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 32532), e.g., agricultural
workers; commercial applicators; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and
floriculture workers; residential users.
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
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 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 the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any
person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may
also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural
regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for
hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. 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-2005-0058 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 on or
before November 27, 2006.
    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 your copies, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0058, 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
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, 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. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of July 6, 2005 (70 FR 38918) (FRL-7719-3),
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 4E6863)
by LG Life Sciences, Ltd., c/o Landis International, Inc., P.O. Box
5126, Valdosta, GA 31603-5126. The petition requested that 40 CFR
180.622 be amended by establishing a tolerance for residues of the
fungicide ethaboxam, N-(cyano-2-thienylmethyl)-4-ethyl-2-(ethlyamino)-
5-thiazolecarboxamide, in or on grape, grape juice, and raisins at 6.0
ppm. That notice included a summary of the petition prepared by the
registrant LG Life Sciences, Ltd., c/o Landis International, Inc. There
were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.
    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....''
    EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. For further discussion of the
regulatory requirements of section 408 of the FFDCA and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/trac/science
.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Consistent with 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, consistent with section
408(b)(2) of FFDCA, for a tolerance for residues of ethaboxam on grape
at 6.0 ppm. Studies examining the transfer of ethaboxam to processed
grape commodities (e.g., grape juice, raisins) show that some
concentration of ethaboxam may occur during the production of raisins
and grape juice; however, the supported tolerance of 6.0 ppm for grape
is sufficient to cover the potential for residues in the processed
commodities, and separate tolerances for these commodities are not
needed. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with
establishing the tolerance 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. Specific information on the studies received and the nature
of the toxic effects caused by ethaboxam 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 in the electronic
docket (docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0058) for this rule at http://www.regulations.gov or http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/factsheets.

.

B. Toxicological Endpoints

    For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the dose at which no adverse effects are observed
(the NOAEL) from the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use
in risk assessment is used to estimate the toxicological level of
concern (LOC). However, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of
concern are identified (the LOAEL) is sometimes used for risk
assessment if no NOAEL was achieved in the toxicology study selected.
An uncertainty factor (UF) is applied to reflect 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.
    The linear default risk methodology (Q*) is the primary method
currently used by the Agency to quantify non-threshold hazards such as
cancer. The Q* approach assumes that any amount of exposure will lead
to some degree of cancer risk, estimates risk in terms of the
probability of occurrence of additional cancer cases. More information
can be found on the general principles EPA uses in risk
characterization at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm and http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/trac/science.

d1/trac/science.

human risk assessment is shown in Table 1. of this unit:

      Table 1.--Summary of Toxicological Dose and Endpoints for Ethaboxam for Use in Human Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Dose Used in Risk
                                             Assessment,          Special FQPA SF and
          Exposure/Scenario                Interspecies and       Level of Concern for   Study and Toxicological
                                         Intraspecies and any       Risk Assessment              Effects
                                            Traditional UF
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute Dietary (Females 13-49 years of  NOAEL = 30 mg/kg/day     Special FQPA SF = 1      Developmental Toxicity
 age)                                  UF = 100...............  aPAD = acute RfD/         Rat LOAEL = 100 mg/kg/
                                       Acute RfD = 0.3 mg/kg/    Special FQPA SF = 0.3    day based on abnormal
                                        day.                     mg/kg/day.               liver lobation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute Dietary (General population      NOAEL = N/A              Special FQPA SF = N/A    No appropriate endpoint
 including infants and children)       UF = N/A...............  aPAD = acute RfD/         attributable to a
                                       Acute RfD = N/A........   Special FQPA SF = N/A.   single dose
                                                                                identified. LOAEL = N/
                                                                                A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic Dietary (All populations)      NOAEL= 5.5 mg/kg/day     Special FQPA SF = 1      Combined Chronic/
                                       UF = 100...............  cPAD = chronic RfD/       Carcinogenicity-Rat
                                       Chronic RfD = 0.055 mg/   Special FQPA SF =        LOAEL = 16.4 mg/kg/day
                                        kg/day.                  0.055 mg/kg/day.         based on effects
                                                                                observed in the male
                                                                                reproductive organs
                                                                                (testes, epididymides,
                                                                                prostate, and seminal
                                                                                vesicles).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (oral, dermal, inhalation)      N/A                      N/A                      The Agency classified
                                                                                ethaboxam as having
                                                                                ``suggestive evidence
                                                                                of carcinogenicity.''
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. Risk assessments were
conducted by EPA to assess dietary exposures from ethaboxam 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. No such effects were
identified in the toxicological studies for ethaboxam that pertain to
the general population including infants and children; however, an
effect of concern was identified for females, 13-49 years of age.
Therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment was
necessary for females, 13-49 years of age.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with
the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID\TM\), which incorporates
food consumption data as reported by respondents in the USDA 1994-1996
and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals
(CSFII), and accumulated exposure to the chemical for each commodity.
The following assumptions were made for the chronic exposure
assessment: Chronic dietary analysis is based on the tolerance level
residues and an assumption that 100% of the crop will be treated.
    iii. Cancer. The Agency classified ethaboxam as having ``suggestive
evidence of carcinogenicity.'' The Agency concluded that the
quantification of carcinogenic potential is not required.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. This petition is not
associated with an application to register ethaboxam uses in the U.S.
Ethaboxam is proposed for use on fruit commodities that may be imported
into the U.S., thus, the source of exposure expected for ethaboxam is
solely from residues in food. Consequently, an exposure assessment that
includes ethaboxam residues in drinking water is not warranted at this
time.
    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). Ethaboxam is not
registered for use on any sites that would result in residential
exposure.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of the FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative
risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made
a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to ethaboxam and any other
substances and ethaboxam does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite
produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance
action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that ethaboxam has a common
mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding
EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of
toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see
the policy statements released by EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs
concerning common mechanism determinations and procedures for
cumulating effects from substances found to have a common mechanism on
EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408 of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply
an additional tenfold 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 data base on toxicity and exposure
unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of
safety will be safe for infants and children. Margins of safety are
incorporated into EPA risk assessments either directly through use of a
MOE analysis or through using uncertainty (safety) factors in
calculating a dose level that poses no appreciable risk to humans. In
applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X
when reliable data do not support the choice of a different factor, or,
if reliable data are available, EPA uses a different additional safety
factor value based on the use of traditional uncertainty factors and/or
special FQPA safety factors, as appropriate.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is evidence of
increased qualitative susceptibility in the rat developmental and
reproduction studies. Considering the overall toxicity profile and the
doses and endpoints selected for risk assessment for ethaboxam, the
degree of concern for prenatal and postnatal effects observed in the
studies is low based on the following: The developmental/offspring
effects observed in the studies are well characterized and occur in the
presence of maternal toxicity; a clear NOAEL has been identified in
both of the studies; and there are no residual uncertainties for pre-
and/or postnatal toxicity. Furthermore, the toxicology endpoint
established for risk assessment is based on a lower NOAEL than the
reproductive NOAEL, and thus is considered protective of developmental/
offspring effects.
    3. Conclusion. The Agency recommends that the FQPA safety factor be
reduced to 1X because there are no/low concerns and no residual
uncertainties with regard to pre- and post-natal toxicity. Although
there was evidence of increased qualitative susceptibility observed in
rat developmental and reproduction studies, the studies submitted
adequately address questions regarding pre- and post- natal toxicity,
and the developmental/offspring effects observed in the studies are
well characterized (clear NOAELs established). The toxicology endpoint
established for risk assessment is based on a lower NOAEL than the
reproductive NOAEL, and is considered protective of the developmental/
offspring effects observed. In addition, the toxicology endpoint
established for risk assessment is also considered protective of the
male reproductive alterations observed in the toxicology database.
There is a complete toxicity database for ethaboxam and exposure data
are complete or are estimated based on data that reasonably accounts
for potential exposures.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food to
ethaboxam will occupy 10% of the aPAD for the U.S. population and 4% of
the aPAD for females 13 years and older.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to ethaboxam
from food will utilize 6% of the cPAD for the U.S. population, 9% of
the cPAD for all infants less than 1 year of age, and 31% of the cPAD
for children 1-2 years of age. There are no residential uses for
ethaboxam that result in chronic residential exposure to ethaboxam.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background exposure level).
    Ethaboxam is not registered for use on any sites that would result
in residential exposure or residues in drinking water. Therefore, the
aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from food only, which does not
exceed the Agency's level of concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
    Ethaboxam is not registered for use on any sites that would result
in residential exposure or residues in drinking water. Therefore, the
aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from food only, which does not
exceed the Agency's level of concern.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. The Agency classified
ethaboxam as having ``suggestive evidence of carcinogenicity based on
Leydig cell tumors observed in male rats.'' The Agency has determined
that potential human risk to Leydig cell tumorigenesis would not be
expected at exposure levels that do not cause tumors in rats. The NOAEL
and LOAEL selected for the chronic reference dose (cRfD) is based on
reproductive toxicity observed at lower doses than the Leydig cell
tumor response. Thus, the cRfD would be protective of the cancer
effects.
    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, and to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to ethaboxam residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (HPLC/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 currently no established Codex, Canadian, or Mexican
maximum residue levels (MRLs) for ethaboxam.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, an imported tolerance is established for residues of
ethaboxam, N-(cyano-2-thienylmethyl)-4-ethyl-2-(ethylamino)-5-
thiazolecarboxamide, in or on grape at 6.0 ppm. Studies examining the
transfer of ethaboxam to processed grape commodities (e.g., grape
juice, raisins) show that some concentration of ethaboxam may occur
during the production of raisins and grape juice; however, the
supported tolerance of 6.0 ppm for grape is sufficient to cover the
potential for residues in the processed commodities, and separate
tolerances for these commodities are not needed.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance 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 rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of
significance, this 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). 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., or 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). 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); or OMB review
or any Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997). 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). 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.
In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a
substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the
national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local
officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' This final rule directly regulates growers, food
processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action
does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency has
determined that this rule does not have any ``tribal implications'' as
described in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6,
2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in
the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.''
``Policies that have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive
order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.''
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal
governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this rule.

VII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the Agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this 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: September 13, 2006.
James Jones,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 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 180.622 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  180.622  Ethaboxam; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of ethaboxam,
N-(cyano-2-thienylmethyl)-4-ethyl-2-(ethlyamino)-5-thiazolecarboxamide
in or on the following commodity:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grape\1\...................................................          6.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There is no U.S. registration as of September 27, 2006

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

[FR Doc. 06-8176 Filed 9-26-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


September 13 2022  -  Full NACOSH Meeting
Task 1 Report  -  Kathleen Dobson Work Group Chair

       Reporting timeline  -  Monday September 19  -  There are about 12 weeks until mid-December. Anticipate 4  -  5 meetings during that time period to report out.
2.	Reiterate that OSHA has a lot of good material  -  some is outdated  -  there are broken links
3.	Not all material is bi (or multi) lingual
4.	Break out the information into each of the charges OSHA has asked of us
5.	Development of a full report to be delivered to the full NACOSH Committee in December.
6. 	Summary of charges and review to date:
Charge 1: Whether there are communication strategies or products that are useful for employers and workers that are not currently being employed by OSHA.
             Include that there is language in all communication documents referencing that employers have the responsibility to protect workers*** The working group believes this needs to be the single overarching item across all charges***
             A train-the-trainer program would be helpful for OSHA to evaluate and consider  -  i.e.; Salt Lake OSHA? CalOSHA - Train-the-Trainer (including links to other commonalities and interactivity with train-the-trainer processes - similar resources or elements of heat-illness prevention programs have been evaluated and shown to be effective)
             Worker-designated application (downloadable worker narratives)
                   Tool Box Talks/Pre-job briefings (how to address in industries outside of construction)
                   Audio-visual material as additional communication strategy (cost/feasibility may be an issue) (examples: short clips, examples, controls, best practice resources)

Charge 2: Whether there are critical heat topics missing from materials, such as;

             Lack of information about indoor heat
                   Warehouse work - heat related incidents related to quotas and production rates (even at lower temperatures - ventilation and humidity)
             Fluctuating weather conditions - major spikes up and down in temperatures and acclimatization issues
                   History of longer, hotter summer temperatures (trending expected to continue)
             Other effects of heat other than heat illness, heat stroke, such as heart disease, asthma, COPD, dehydration - kidney disease, mental well-being, acute injuries - i.e.; falls )
             Productivity
             Lost work days
             Risk assessment and how to go about developing (reference: CAL IIPP), guidance materials (employer responsibility - guidance/guidance document needed) Hierarchy of controls
             Worker hydration - "food and fuel" to do the job (food & nutrition)
             Roles & responsibilities of employers and employees
             Whistleblower information included with roles & responsibilities

Charge 3: Whether materials are accessible to the populations most at risk of hazardous heat exposure in outdoor and indoor work settings
             Analyzing what types of materials are being accessed (who and how do people access the materials)
             At-risk populations should be made aware of materials? Leverage strategies below to disseminate information (Strategic partnerships, alliances) (compliance assistance specialists, OSHA QuickTakes, OSHA Office of Outreach)
             Community outreach and local markets, gatekeepers - i.e.; churches, libraries, community health centers (cooling centers), elementary and secondary schools near agriculture sites

Charge 4: Whether existing guidance materials (including training and technical guidance) are up to date and align with current best practices in heat hazards and heat illness prevention.

             Some inconsistencies across documents  -  i.e.;
                   Symptoms
                   Hydration and be consistent across documents
                   Broken links in older documents
                   New evidence in cooling methods and messaging across all documents
             Technical review (aspects that are now out of date - new information, new scientific research)
             New scientific research
                   Physiological monitoring (i.e.; ACGIH)
                   Acclimatization
                   Caffeinated beverages review and research
                   Respirators and masks related to thermal comfort and heat illness
                   Sun exposure (check science surrounding technical comments)
             Inclusion of physical health & risk factors (Avoiding "shaming" the worker for having a health issue - a kind of blame the worker for their lifestyle messaging and heat-related illnesses and differences in studies)
             Technical vs General Info - signs & symptoms, cooling mechanisms, acclimatization, etc.

Charge 5: If there are specific industries or audiences (e.g., employers, supervisors, employees) that would benefit from more tailored guidance materials

             Indoor workers
             Mobile work forces - waste recycling, delivery workers
             List out more unique workers
             Other industries with key supply-chain issues
             First Responders - wildland and structural
             Organize by environmental or task characteristics vs industry only (i.e.; time sensitive industries where similar creative solutions could be shared)


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 230 (Thursday, November 29, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 61400]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25976]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. 2018-85]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Overwatch
Aero, LLC

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The
purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and
participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of
this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary
is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final
disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before December 19, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2018-0857
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jake Troutman,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office
of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW, Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 23, 2018.
Lirio Liu,
Executive Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2018-0857.
    Petitioner: Overwatch Aero, LLC.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: Part 21 Sec. Sec.  43.7; 43.11;
45.11; 45.29; 61.113(a) & (b); 91.9(b)(2) & (c); 91.103(b)(2); 91.105;
91.109; 91.151(a); 91.203(a) & (b); 91.215; 91.403; 91.405(a);
91.407(a)(1); 409(a)(1) & (a)(2); 91.417(a) & (b).
    Description of Relief Sought: The proposed exemption, if granted,
would allow the petitioner to operate commercial operational and
training missions with the HQ-60 and HQ-90 unmanned aircraft systems,
which weigh more than 55 pounds, beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS)
and within visual line of sight (VLOS), for search and rescue and fire
mapping support to first responders in the Bureau of Land Management-
managed land near Nipomo, California, private property near Santa Ynez,
California, or as prescribed in a Certificate of Authorization or
Special Governmental Interest.

[FR Doc. 2018-25976 Filed 11-28-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 134 (Friday, July 14, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45195-45196]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14997]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR23-5-000]

Zenith Energy Terminals Holdings, LLC v. Tallgrass Pony Express
Pipeline, LLC, and Tallgrass Terminals, LLC; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on July 5, 2023, pursuant to Rule 206 of the Rules
of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
18 CFR 385.206 (2022), Zenith Energy Terminals Holding LLC filed a
complaint against Tallgrass Pony Express Pipeline, LLC and Tallgrass
Terminals, LLC. The complaint raises several issues, including matters
related to Pawnee Terminal, the Buckingham Terminal, the Hereford
Lateral, and Tallgrass Pony Express Northeast Colorado Lateral.
    The Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served
on the

contacts listed for Respondents in the Commission's list of Corporate
Officials.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected], or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on August 4, 2023.

    Dated: July 10, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-14997 Filed 7-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P