[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 117 (Tuesday, June 20, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39780-39783]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12720]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0853; FRL-10967-01-OCSPP]

Sulfoxaflor; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of
sulfoxaflor in or on coffee, green bean. Corteva Agriscience requested
this tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective June 20, 2023. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before August 21, 2023,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0853, is available at
https://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs
Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection
Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg.,
Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room and the OPP Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For the latest
status information on EPA/DC services, docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural

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

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Office of the
Federal Register's e-CFR site at https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40.

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file
an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0853 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
August 21, 2023. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0853, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/where-send-comments-epa-dockets.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of March 24, 2023 (88 FR 17778) (FRL-10579-
02-OCSPP), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3),
21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
1E8945) by Corteva Agriscience, 9330 Zionsville Rd., Indianapolis, IN
46268. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by
establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide sulfoxaflor in
or on the raw agricultural commodity coffee, green bean at 0.3 parts
per million (ppm) and in or on coffee, instant at 0.5 ppm. That
document referenced a summary of the petition, which is available in
the docket, https://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments
submitted in response to the notice of filing. This notice supersedes
the previous notice of August 30, 2022 (87 FR 52868) (FRL-9410-04-
OCSPP). One comment was received but was unrelated to pesticides.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition and in
accordance with its authority under FFDCA section 408(d)(4)(A)(i), EPA
is not establishing the tolerance for coffee, instant as proposed
because it is covered by the tolerance being established on coffee,
green bean. For details, see Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . .
. .''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified therein, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and
other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has
sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on
aggregate exposure for sulfoxaflor including exposure resulting from
the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of
exposures and risks associated with sulfoxaflor follows.
    In an effort to streamline its publications in the Federal
Register, EPA is not reprinting sections that repeat what has been
previously published for tolerance rulemakings for the same pesticide
chemical. Where scientific information concerning a particular chemical
remains unchanged, the content of those sections would not vary between
tolerance rulemakings, and EPA considers referral back to those
sections as sufficient to provide an explanation of the information EPA
considered in making its safety determination for the new rulemaking.
    EPA has previously published tolerance rulemakings for sulfoxaflor
in which EPA concluded, based on the available information, that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm would result from aggregate
exposure to sulfoxaflor and established tolerances for residues of that
chemical. EPA is incorporating previously published sections from these
rulemakings as described further in this rulemaking, as they remain
unchanged.
    Toxicological profile. For a discussion of the Toxicological
Profile of sulfoxaflor, see Unit III.A. of the sulfoxaflor tolerance
rulemaking published in the Federal Register of May 17, 2013 (78 FR
29041) (FRL-9371-4).
    Toxicological points of departure/Levels of concern. For a summary
of the Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern for
sulfoxaflor used for human health risk assessment, see Unit III.B. of
the sulfoxaflor tolerance rulemaking published in the Federal Register
of July 24, 2019 (84 FR 35546) (FRL-9995-63).
    Exposure assessment. EPA's dietary exposure assessments have been
updated to include the additional

exposure from the requested tolerance for residues of sulfoxaflor in or
on coffee, green bean and were conducted with Dietary Exposure
Evaluation Model software using the Food Commodity Intake Database
(DEEM-FCID) Version 4.02, which uses the 2005-2010 food consumption
data from the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA's)
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in
America (NHANES/WWEIA). Both the acute and the chronic dietary
assessments relied primarily on residue data from supervised crop field
trials. For the acute assessment, the Agency used maximum field trial
residue values. For the chronic assessment, EPA used mean field trial
residue values. Several residue estimates were based on tolerance
levels. The acute and chronic assessments used empirical processing
factors, where available, and EPA's default processing factors in all
other cases. Empirical processing factors were translated to similar
commodities per standard Agency practice. Tolerance-level residue
estimates were used for livestock commodities and the Agency assumed
100 percent crop treated (PCT) for the acute and chronic assessments.
    Anticipated residue information. Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA
authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the anticipated
residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual levels of
pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If EPA relies on
such information, EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1)
that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is established,
modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels in food are
not above the levels anticipated. For the present action, EPA will
issue such data call-ins as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E)
and authorized under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to
be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of issuance of these
tolerances.
    Drinking water and non-occupational exposures. Because the
requested tolerance for residues of sulfoxaflor in or on coffee, green
bean does not include registrations for use on coffee in the U.S., the
estimated drinking water concentrations have not changed. For a
detailed summary of the drinking water analysis for sulfoxaflor used
for the human health risk assessment, see Unit III.C.2. of the July 24,
2019, rulemaking.
    No residential uses and no commercial/professional uses at
residential sites are registered or proposed for sulfoxaflor;
therefore, no residential risk assessments are needed. Sulfoxaflor is
not proposed or registered for any specific use patterns that would
result in residential exposure.
    Cumulative exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires
that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a
tolerance, the Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the
cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other
substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.'' Unlike other
pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based
on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism
of toxicity finding as to sulfoxaflor and any other substances and
sulfoxaflor does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by
other substances. For the purposes of this action, therefore, EPA has
not assumed that sulfoxaflor has a common mechanism of toxicity with
other substances.
    Safety factor for infants and children. EPA continues to conclude
that there are reliable data to support the reduction of the Food
Quality Protection Act (FQPA) safety factor from 10X to 1X. See Unit
III.D. of the July 24, 2019, rulemaking for a discussion of the
Agency's rationale for that determination.
    Aggregate risks and determination of safety. EPA determines whether
acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing
dietary (food and drinking water) exposure estimates to the acute
population-adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic population-adjusted dose
(cPAD). Short- and intermediate-term risks are evaluated by comparing
the estimated total food, water, and residential exposure to the
appropriate points of departure to ensure that an adequate margin of
exposure (MOE) exists.
    Acute dietary risks are below the Agency's level of concern of 100%
of the aPAD; they are 27% of the aPAD for females 13 to 49 years old
and 25% of the aPAD for children 1 to 2 years old, the groups with the
highest exposure. Chronic dietary risks are below the Agency's level of
concern of 100% of the cPAD; they are 38% of the cPAD for children 1 to
2 years old, the group with the highest exposure.
    Sulfoxaflor is not registered for any use patterns that would
result in either short- or intermediate-term residential exposure.
Therefore, the aggregate risk estimates are equivalent to the dietary
risk estimates and are not of concern.
    Sulfoxaflor is classified as ``Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenic
Potential.'' Quantification of risk using a non-linear approach (i.e.,
reference dose (RfD)) adequately accounts for all chronic toxicity,
including carcinogenicity, that could result from exposure to
sulfoxaflor. As the chronic dietary endpoint and dose are protective of
potential cancer effects, sulfoxaflor is not expected to pose an
aggregate cancer risk.
    Therefore, based on the risk assessments and information described
above, EPA concludes there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will
result to the general population, or to infants and children, from
aggregate exposure to sulfoxaflor residues. More detailed information
on this action can be found in the document titled ``Sulfoxaflor. Human
Health Risk Assessment for the Proposed Tolerance Without a U.S.
Registration on Coffee'' in docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0853.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    For a discussion of the available analytical enforcement method,
see Unit IV.A. of the July 24, 2019, rulemaking.

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4).
    Codex is in the process of establishing an MRL for sulfoxaflor in/
on coffee at a level of 0.3 mg/kg. The proposed U.S. tolerance for
sulfoxaflor in/on coffee green bean will be harmonized with Codex's
MRL.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerance

    EPA is not establishing the tolerance for coffee, instant as
requested because instant coffee is covered by the tolerance being
established on coffee, green bean. EPA considers instant coffee to be a
blended commodity; therefore, the average raw agricultural commodity
(RAC) value is used to calculate residues in processed commodities.
When the mean concentration for the RAC (0.047 ppm) is multiplied by
the average processing factor for instant coffee (2.4x), the
anticipated residue is 0.11 ppm, which is covered by the tolerance for
coffee, green bean.
    As a housekeeping measure, EPA is removing tolerances that have
expired. Specifically, EPA is removing the general tolerances for
residues of sulfoxaflor in or on arugula at 6 ppm; cress, garden at 6
ppm; and cress,

upland at 6 ppm from paragraph (a) of 40 CFR 180.668 because they
expired on January 24, 2020. Additionally, EPA is removing the time-
limited tolerances for residues of sulfoxaflor in or on sorghum, forage
at 0.4 ppm; sorghum, grain at 0.3 ppm; and sorghum, stover at 0.9 ppm
from paragraph (b) of 40 CFR 180.668 because they expired on December
31, 2020.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, a tolerance is established for residues of sulfoxaflor
in or on coffee, green bean at 0.3 ppm. In addition, EPA is removing
the expired general tolerances for residues of sulfoxaflor in or on
arugula at 6 ppm; cress, garden at 6 ppm; and cress, upland at 6 ppm
and the expired time-limited tolerances for residues of sulfoxaflor in
or on sorghum, forage at 0.4 ppm; sorghum, grain at 0.3 ppm; and
sorghum, stover at 0.9 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

VII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: June 9, 2023.
Charles Smith,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending
40 CFR chapter 1 as follows:

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

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.668:
0
a. Amend the table in paragraph (a) by:
0
i. Adding a heading for the table.
0
ii. Removing the entry for ``Arugula \1\''.
0
iii. Adding alphabetically the commodity ``Coffee, green bean''.
0
iv. Removing the entries for ``Cress, garden \1\'' and ``Cress, upland
\1\''.
0
v. Revising footnote 1.
0
b. Remove and reserve paragraph (b).
    The additions read as follows:

Sec.  180.668  Sulfoxaflor; tolerances for residues.

* * * * *

                        Table 1 to Paragraph (a)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Commodity                        Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Coffee, green bean \1\....................  0.3

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no U.S. registrations as of June 20, 2023.

    (b) [Reserved]
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2023-12720 Filed 6-16-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: February 7, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 25)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 5621-5624]
[DOCID:fr07fe07-18]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0970; FRL-8112-2]

Tris (2-ethylhexyl) Phosphate; Exemption from the Requirement of
a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of tris (2-ethylhexyl) phosphate (TEHP, CAS
Reg. No. 78-42-2) when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide
formulations with the active ingredients pinoxaden, clodinafop-
propargyl, and tralkoxydium, with no more than two applications per
season when applied to wheat and barley up to the pre-boot

stage (prior to formation of edible grain). Syngenta Crop Protection,
LLC submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of
1996 (FQPA), requesting an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum
permissible level for residues of TEHP.

DATES: This regulation is effective February 7, 2007. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before April 9, 2007, 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-2006-0970. 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 either 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: R. Tracy Ward, 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 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 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. To determine
whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should
carefully examine the applicability provisions in [insert appropriate
cite to either another unit in the preamble or a section in a rule]. 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-2006-0970 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 April 9, 2007.
    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-2006-0970, 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 telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of August 9, 2006 (71 FR 45559) (FRL-8082-
9), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408 of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C.
346a, as amended by the FQPA (Public Law 104-170), announcing the
filing of a pesticide petition (PP 6E7078) by Syngenta Crop Protection,
LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27410. The petition requested that
40 CFR 180.910 be amended by establishing an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues of tris (2-ethylhexyl)
phosphate (TEHP, CAS Reg. No. 78-42-2). That notice referenced a
summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner. Syngenta Crop
Protection, LLC requested the use of TEHP as an adjuvant in pesticide
formulations with the active ingredients pinoxaden, clodinafop-
propargyl, and tralkoxydium applied to the growing crops wheat and
barley. There were no substantive comments received in response to the
notice of filing.
    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for 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 the 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 the 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. . . .''

III. Risk Characterization and Conclusion

    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of the FFDCA, EPA has reviewed
the available scientific data and other relevant information in support
of this action and considered its validity, completeness and
reliability and the relationship of this information 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 nature of the toxic effects caused
by TEHP are discussed in this unit. The following provides a brief
summary of the risk assessment and conclusions for the Agency's review
of TEHP. The full decision document for this action is available on
EPA's Electronic Docket at http://www.regulations.gov under docket

number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0970.

A. Human Health

    The Agency reviewed the available information submitted by the
petitioner as well as additional information available to the Agency
and has determined that TEHP is of low acute and subchronic oral and
inhalation toxicity, but is a moderate skin irritant. TEHP is not a
cancer concern, is not mutagenic and is not a neurotoxin. Although no
developmental toxicity study is available on TEHP, the Agency has
determined that tributyl phosphate is an acceptable analog and can be
used to characterize the developmental toxicity of TEHP. Based on
developmental and reproductive toxicity studies on the analog tributyl
phosphate, TEHP is expected to produce developmental toxicity only at
maternally toxic doses. One developmental study conducted on tributyl
phosphate showed one incident of a rare fetal malformation. The
observed effect is not likely to have resulted from exposure to
tributyl phosphate. The petitioner has agreed to conduct an acceptable
rat developmental study on TEHP and submit it to EPA within 18 months
in order to confirm that this malformation is not an effect of TEHP.
    The Agency concludes that dietary and drinking water exposures of
concern are not anticipated from the inert ingredient use of TEHP
considering its physical and chemical properties, including low
volatility and rapid biodegradation, and the limitations imposed by its
proposed use as an adjuvant in pesticide formulations only with the
active ingredients pinoxaden, clodinafop-propargyl, and tralkoxydium,
limited to no more than two applications per season on two crops, wheat
and barley, up to the pre-boot stage (prior to formation of edible
grain).
    Residential exposures (inhalation and dermal) to TEHP are not
expected due to its low volatility, limited use pattern in agricultural
pesticides, and rapid biodegradation in the environment.
    Taking into consideration all available information on TEHP, it has
been determined that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm to
any population subgroup will result from aggregate exposure to TEHP
when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations when
considering dietary exposure and all other non-occupational sources of
pesticide exposure for which there is reliable information. Therefore,
the exemption from the requirement of a tolerance requested by the
petitioner, Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, for residues of TEHP, can be
considered assessed as safe under section 408(q) of the FFDCA.

B. Analytical Methods

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitations.

C. International Tolerances

    The Agency is not aware of any country requiring a tolerance for
tris (2-ethylhexyl) phosphate nor have any CODEX Maximum Residue Levels
(MRLs) been established for any food crops at this time.

IV. Conclusions

    Based on the information in this preamble and in the decision
document, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm
to the general population, including infants and children, from
aggregate exposure to residues of tris (2-ethylhexyl) phosphate (TEHP).
Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting TEHP from the requirement of a
tolerance will be safe. EPA is establishing a tolerance exemption for
TEHP on wheat and barley when it is used as an inert ingredient in
pesticide formulations with the active ingredients pinoxaden,
clodinafop-propargyl, and tralkoxydium. TEHP is limited to no more than
two applications per season and these applications must occur no later
than the pre-boot stage (prior to formation of edible grain).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes an exemption from the tolerance
requirement under section 408(d) of the 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 the FFDCA, such as the exemption 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 the 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.

VI. 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: January 25, 2007.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

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

PART 180--AMENDED

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

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

0
2. Section 180.1274 is added to subpart D to read as follows:

Sec.  180.1274  Tris (2-ethylhexyl) phosphate; exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance.

    Tris (2-ethylhexyl) phosphate (TEHP, CAS Reg. No. 78-42-2) is
exempt from the requirement of a tolerance for residues in wheat and
barley when used under the following conditions:
    (a) The use is in accordance with good agricultural practices;
    (b) Tris (2-ethylhexyl) phosphate is used as an inert ingredient in
pesticide formulations with the active ingredients pinoxaden,
clodinafop-propargyl, and tralkoxydium;
    (c) Tris (2-ethylhexyl) phosphate is applied no more than twice per
season; and
    (d) The applications occur no later than the pre-boot stage (prior
to formation of edible grain).

[FR Doc. 07-460 Filed 1-30-07; 12:41 pm]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 152 (Monday, August 8, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52353-52354]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18510]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 64

[Docket ID FEMA-2016-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-8445]

Suspension of Community Eligibility

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood
insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates
listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain
management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has
adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the
effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not
occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the
Federal Register on a subsequent date. Also, information identifying
the current participation status of a community can be obtained from
FEMA's Community Status Book (CSB).

DATES: The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is
the third date (``Susp.'') listed in the third column of the tables in
amended Sec.  64.6.

ADDRESSES: The CSB is available at http://www.fema.gov/fema/csb.shtm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you want to determine whether a
particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for
further information, contact Patricia Suber, Federal Insurance and
Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 400 C
Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP enables property owners to purchase
Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from
private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer
local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new
construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale
of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts
adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement
measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that
statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR
part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the
effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance
will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of
these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of
legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is
published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities
will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of
NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such
communities will be published in the Federal Register.
    In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that
identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities.
The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the
fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance
(except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be
provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified
SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for
more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having
flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act
of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against
certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the
communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The
Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5
U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities
listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.
    Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification
letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the
community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management
measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these
notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less
than 30 days.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This rule is categorically
excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental
Considerations. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that
this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended,
Section 1315, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless
an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management
measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no
longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective
date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities
unless remedial action takes place.
    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies
that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the
applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.
    Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection
of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, Floodplains.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

PART 64--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 64 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp.; p. 376.

Sec.  64.6  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  64.6 are amended
as follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Effective date authorization/
         State and location             Community      cancellation of sale of        Current effective map date      Date certain Federal assistance no
                                           No.      flood insurance in community                                           longer available in SFHAs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Region III

Maryland:
    Laurel, City of, Prince George's        240053  September 10, 1971, Emerg;    September 16, 2016                  September 16, 2016.
     County.                                         November 1, 1978, Reg;
                                                     September 16, 2016, Susp.
    Prince George's County,                 245208  August 7, 1970, Emerg;        ......*do                           Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                           August 4, 1972, Reg;
                                                     September 16, 2016, Susp.
Pennsylvania:
    Lower Augusta, Township of,             421017  January 28, 1974, Emerg;      ......do                            Do.
     Northumberland County.                          August 1, 1979, Reg;
                                                     September 16, 2016, Susp.
    Northumberland, Borough of,             420739  June 6, 1974, Emerg;          ......do                            Do.
     Northumberland County.                          February 2, 1977, Reg;
                                                     September 16, 2016, Susp.
    Point, Township of,                     421026  November 19, 1973, Emerg;     ......do                            Do.
     Northumberland County.                          May 2, 1977, Reg; September
                                                     16, 2016, Susp.
    Rockefeller, Township of,               421152  April 12, 1974, Emerg; April  ......do                            Do.
     Northumberland County.                          1, 1986, Reg; September 16,
                                                     2016, Susp.
    Sunbury, City of, Northumberland        420743  September 3, 1971, Emerg;     ......do                            Do.
     County.                                         July 18, 1977, Reg;
                                                     September 16, 2016, Susp.
    Upper Augusta, Township of,             420745  January 19, 1973, Emerg; May  ......do                            Do.
     Northumberland County.                          2, 1977, Reg; September 16,
                                                     2016, Susp.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*do = Ditto.
Code for reading third column: Emerg.--Emergency; Reg.--Regular; Susp.--Suspension.

Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Mitigation, Federal Insurance and
Mitigation Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2016-18510 Filed 8-5-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register: May 11, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 90)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 26151-26152]
[DOCID:fr11my10-26]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0270 Airspace Docket No. 10-AAL-8]

Proposed Revision of Class E Airspace; Kulik Lake, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to revise Class E airspace at Kulik Lake,
AK. This action would correct an error in the legal description of the
Kulik Lake airspace description, which makes this action necessary to
enhance safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)
operations.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 25, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal to the Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-
0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-2010-0270/Airspace Docket
No. 10-AAL-8 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit
comments on 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 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket
Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527) is on the plaza level of the
Department of Transportation NASSIF Building at the above address.
    An informal docket may also be examined during normal business
hours at the office of the Manager, Safety, Alaska Flight Service
Operations, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box
14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Rolf, Federal Aviation
Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587;
telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet address: http://www.faa.gov/about/
office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/systemops/fs/
alaskan/rulemaking/.

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-2010-0270/
Airspace Docket No. 10-AAL-8.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

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 Federal
Docket Management System Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and
phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Alaska Flight Services Information
Area Group. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for
future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-
9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the
application procedure.

The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR) part 71 by revising Class E airspace at Kulik Lake, AK, to
correct an error recently found in the airspace description. This Class
E airspace would provide adequate controlled airspace upward from 700
feet above the surface, for the safety and management of IFR operations
at Kulik Lake Airport.
    The Class E airspace areas designated as 700/1200 foot transition
areas are published in paragraph 6005 in FAA Order 7400.9T, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 27, 2009, and
effective September 15, 2009, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document
would be subsequently published 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. Because 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 United States 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 1, section 40103, Sovereignty and use of
airspace. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing
regulations to ensure the safe and efficient use of the navigable
airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because
it proposes to revise airspace at Kulik Lake, Alaska, and represents
the FAA's continuing effort to safely and efficiently use the navigable
airspace.

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, CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND
CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING
POINTS

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9T, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, signed August 27, 2009, and effective September 15,
2009, is to be amended as follows:
* * * * *

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Extending Upward from 700 Feet or
More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AAL AK E5 Kulik Lake, AK [Revised]

Kulik Lake Airport, AK
(Lat. 58[deg]58'55'' N., long. 155[deg]07'17'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 4.3-mile radius of the Kulik Lake Airport, AK, and within 4
miles either side of the 278 bearing from the Kulik Lake Airport,
extending from the 4.3-mile radius to 7.5 miles west of the Kulik
Lake Airport, AK.

    Issued in Anchorage, AK, on April 29, 2010.
Michael A. Tarr,
Acting Manager, Alaska Flight Services Information Area Group.
[FR Doc. 2010-11082 Filed 5-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 10, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 1444]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00221]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-570, OMB Control No.3235-0632]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension: Rule 12h-1(f)

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Rule 12h-1(f) (17 CFR 240.12h-1(f)) under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') provides an exemption from the Exchange
Act Section 12(g) registration requirements for compensatory employee
stock options of issuers that are not required to file periodic reports
under the Exchange Act. The information required under Exchange Act
Rule 12h-1 is not filed with the Commission. Exchange Act Rule 12h-1(f)
permits issuers to provide the required information to the option
holders either by: (i) physical or electronic delivery of the
information; or (ii) written notice to the option holders of the
availability of the information on a password-protected internet site.
We estimate that it takes approximately 2 burden hours per response to
prepare and provide the information required under Rule 12h-1(f) and
that the information is prepared and provided by approximately 40
respondents. We estimate that 25% of the 2 hours per response (0.5
hours) is prepared by the company for a total annual reporting burden
of 20 hours (0.5 hours per response x 40 responses).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) whether this proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication by March 13, 2023.
    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 control number.
    Please direct your written comment to David Bottom, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o John
Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
[email protected].

    Dated: January 4, 2023.
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-00221 Filed 1-9-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P