[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 202 (Friday, October 22, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 58607]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22676]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0438; Airspace Docket No. 17-AEA-5]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment VOR Federal Airways V-66, V-189, V-260, and V-
266; in the Vicinity of Franklin, VA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is withdrawing the NPRM published in the Federal
Register on June 2, 2017, proposing to modify VHF Omnidirectional Range
(VOR) Federal airways V-66, V-189, V-260, and V-266 in the Vicinity of
Franklin, VA, due to the planned decommissioning of the Franklin, VA,
(FKN) VOR and Tactical Air Navigational System (VORTAC) navigation aid.
Subsequent to the NPRM, the FKN VORTAC decommissioning has been delayed
until a to-be-determined date. The FAA decided that additional planning
is necessary to ensure a more efficient implementation and integration
with other ongoing VOR Minimum Operational Network (VOR MON) program
activities, and determined that withdrawal of the proposed rule is
warranted.

DATES: Effective October 22, 2021, the proposed rule published June 2,
2017 (82 FR 25559), is withdrawn.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register for Docket No. FAA-2017-0438 (82 FR 25559; June 2, 2017). The
NPRM proposed to amend VOR Federal airways V-66, V-189, V-260, and V-
266 due to the planned decommissioning of the FKN VORTAC which provides
navigation guidance for portions of the affected airways. Interested
parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by
submitting written comments on the proposal. One comment was received.
The commenter recommended that, for VOR NAVAIDs that are to be
decommissioned, and for those airways that are correspondingly removed,
the FAA should create an area navigation (RNAV) waypoint at the
previous NAVAID location, and convert all fixes and intersections along
that route to RNAV waypoints.

FAA's Conclusions

    The FAA has reviewed the FKN VORTAC decommissioning project and
determined that additional planning meetings are warranted to ensure a
more efficient implementation and integration with other ongoing
program activities; therefore, the NPRM is withdrawn.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Withdrawal

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the NPRM
published in the Federal Register on June 2, 2017 (82 FR 25559), FR
Doc. 2017-11080, is hereby withdrawn.

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

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 14, 2021.
Michael R. Beckles,
Acting Manager, Rules and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2021-22676 Filed 10-21-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 116)]
[Notices]
[Page 33461-33462]
[DOCID:fr18jn07-45]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-474-000]

National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation; Notice of Tariff Filing

June 8, 2007.
    Take notice that on May 31, 2007, National Fuel Gas Supply
Corporation (National) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume No. 1, 102nd Revised Sheet No. 9, to
become effective June 1, 2007.
    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 and 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. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Sec.  154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone
filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on
the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before
the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov
.

Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14
copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-11653 Filed 6-15-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 1)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 52-57]
[DOCID:fr02ja08-13]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0732; FRL-8342-6]

Trifloxystrobin; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for the combined
residues of trifloxystrobin, and its free form acid metabolite in or on
asparagus; papaya; sapote, black; canistel; sapote, mamey; mango;
sapodilla; star apple; vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B;
radish, tops; fruit, citrus, group 10; citrus, oil; citrus, dried pulp;
and strawberry. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), and
Bayer Crop Science requested these tolerances under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective January 2, 2008. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before March 3, 2008, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0732. To access the
electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced

Search,'' then ``Docket Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where
indicated and select the ``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on
the regulations.gov website to view the docket index or access
available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the
docket index available in regulations.gov. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or,

if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in
Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr.,
Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

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

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

    In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this Federal
Register document through the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, you may access this Federal Register document

electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access a

frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at
40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR
site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, any person may file an objection to
any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those
objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this
regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part
178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0732 in the subject line on the first page of
your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or
delivered to the Hearing Clerk as required by 40 CFR part 178 on or
before March 3, 2008.
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit this copy, identified by docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0732, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Petition for Tolerance

    In the Federal Registers of September 13, 2006 (71 FR 54058) (FRL-
8091-2), and August 22, 2007 (72 FR 47010) (FRL-8142-5), EPA issued
notices pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3),
announcing the filing of pesticide petitions (PPs) 6E7088, 6F7123,
7F7171 by IR-4, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ
08540; and Bayer CropScience, P.O. Box 12014, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. These petitions requested that 40 CFR
180.555 be amended by establishing tolerances for combined residues of
the fungicide trifloxystrobin, (Benzeneacetic acid, ( E,E )-[alpha]-
(methoxyimino)-2-[[[[1-[3-(trifluoromethyl)
phenyl]ethylidene]amino]oxy]methyl]-, methyl ester) and the free form
of its acid metabolite CGA-321113 (( E,E )-methoxyimino-[2-[1-(3-
trifluoromethyl-phenyl)-ethylideneaminooxymethyl]-phenyl]acetic acid,
in or on asparagus at 0.07 parts per million (ppm); papaya at 0.7 ppm;
sapote, black at 0.7ppm; canistel at 0.7 ppm; sapote, mamey at 0.7 ppm;
mango at 0.7 ppm; sapodilla at 0.7 ppm; star apple at 0.7 ppm;
vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B at 0.1 ppm; and radish,
tops at 10 ppm (6E7088); fruit, citrus, group 10 at 0.4 ppm; citrus,
oil at 36 ppm; citrus, dried pulp at 1.0 ppm (6F7123); and strawberry
at 1.1 ppm (6F7171). These notices referenced a summary of the
petitions prepared by Bayer CropScience, the registrant, which is
available to the public in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. One

comment was received from a private citizen on the notice of filing
concerning the tolerances for strawberry and citrus. EPA's response to
these comments is discussed in Unit IV.C.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
increased the tolerances on fruit, citrus, group 10 from 0.4 to 0.6
ppm, and citrus, oil from 36 to 38 ppm. The reason for these changes is
explained in Unit IV.D.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical
residue....'' These provisions were added to FFDCA by the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for tolerance
for combined residues of trifloxystrobin on asparagus at 0.07

ppm; papaya at 0.7 ppm; sapote, black at 0.7 ppm; canistel at 0.7 ppm;
sapote, mamey at 0.7 ppm; mango at 0.7 ppm; sapodilla at 0.7 ppm; star
apple at 0.7 ppm; vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B at
0.1 ppm; and radish, tops at 10 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10 at 0.6
ppm; citrus, oil at 38 ppm; citrus, dried pulp at 1.0 ppm; and
strawberry at 1.1 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks
associated with establishing these tolerances follow.

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 adverse effects caused by trifloxystrobin 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
Trifloxystrobin: Human Health Risk Assessment for Section 3
Registration for the Proposed Uses on Grasses Grown for Seed on pages
41 and 42 at http://www.regulations.gov. The referenced document is

available in docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0539.

B. Toxicological Endpoints

    For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological level of concern (LOC) is derived
from the highest dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the
NOAEL) in the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use in
risk assessment. However, if a NOAEL cannot be determined, the lowest
dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL) is
sometimes used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors (UFs)
are used in conjunction with the LOC to take into account uncertainties
inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and
in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population
as well as other unknowns. Safety is assessed for acute and chronic
risks by comparing aggregate exposure to the pesticide to the acute
population adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic population adjusted dose
(cPAD). The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by dividing the LOC by all
applicable UFs. Short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term risks are
evaluated by comparing aggregate exposure to the LOC to ensure that the
margin of exposure (MOE) called for by the product of all applicable
UFs is not exceeded.
    For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of
exposure will lead to some degree of risk and estimates risk in terms
of the probability of occurrence of additional adverse cases.
Generally, cancer risks are considered non-threshold. For more
information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization
and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/1997/November/Day-26/p30948.htm
.

    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for trifloxystrobin used
for human risk assessment can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in

the Trifloxystrobin: Human Health Risk Assessment for Section 3 Uses on
Asparagus; Vegetable, Root Except Sugar Beet, Subgroup 1B; Radish
(Tops); and Papaya, Black Sapote, Canistel, Mamey Sapote, Mango,
Sapodilla, and Star Apple, Citrus Fruits, Crop Group 10; Citrus, Oil;
and Citrus, Dried Pulp, and Strawberry on pages 16 and 17 for docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0732.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to trifloxystrobin, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing trifloxystrobin
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.555. EPA assessed dietary exposures from
trifloxystrobin in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. In estimating acute dietary
exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide
Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue
levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance level residues and 100 percent
crop treated (PCT) was performed for trifloxystrobin.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment, EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996,
and 1998 CSFII. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance
level residues and 100 PCT was performed for trifloxystrobin. PCT and/
or anticipated residues were not used.
    iii. Cancer. Trifloxystrobin is classified as a ``not likely
carcinogen''; therefore, quantification of human cancer risk is not
required and a cancer dietary exposure assessment was not performed.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency lacks
sufficient monitoring data to complete a comprehensive dietary exposure
analysis and risk assessment for trifloxystrobin in drinking water.
Because the Agency does not have comprehensive monitoring data,
drinking water concentration estimates are made by reliance on
simulation or modeling taking into account data on the environmental
fate characteristics of trifloxystrobin. Further information regarding
EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.

    Trifloxystrobin is immobile in soil. It degrades and transforms
rapidly in soil and aquatic environments. The primary degradate is CGA-
321113. Estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) were calculated
for total trifloxystrobin residues (parent trifloxystrobin plus the
major degradate CGA-321113) using the Agency's First Index Reservior
Screening Tool (FIRST) model for surface water and the Screening
Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) model for ground water. The
interim method for drinking water estimates for pesticides used in rice
paddies was also used to generate EDWCs. The use site with the highest
application rate is turf, with a maximum label rate of 1.078 pounds
active ingredient/acre/year (lb ai/A/yr) (three applications at 0.359
lb ai/A/yr). Drinking water estimates were also provided for rice
paddies that may be treated with trifloxystrobin.
    The Agency determined that the highest EDWC for both acute and
chronic analysis should use 140 parts per billion (ppb) based on the
model for the use on rice. Because this model does not account for
degradation of the chemical or dilution with uncontaminated water
outside of the rice paddy, the calculated EDWCs (140 ppb) are expected
to exceed concentrations likely to be found in drinking water derived
from surface water sources.
    Based on the FIRST, and SCI-GROW models, the estimated
environmental concentrations (EECs) of trifloxystrobin for acute and
chronic exposures for surface water are estimated at 140 ppb. Acute and
chronic exposure for ground water is estimated at 3.4 ppb.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered

into the dietary exposure model. For the acute and chronic dietary risk
assessments, the water concentration values of 140 ppb (acute and
chronic) were used to access the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    Trifloxystrobin is currently registered for the following
residential non-dietary sites: CompassTM is registered for
residential use on turf grass and ornamentals disease control. However,
this product may only be applied by a Certified Pest Control Operator
(PCO). Therefore, an assessment for residential handlers was not
performed.
    There is potential for dermal (adults and children) and oral
exposure (children only) during post-application activities. EPA
assessed residential post-application exposure using the following
assumptions:
    i. Dermal exposure from pesticide residues on lawns;
    ii. Incidental non-dietary ingestion of pesticide residues on lawns
from hand-to-mouth transfer;
    iii. Incidental non-dietary ingestion of residues from object-to-
mouth activities (pesticide-treated turf grass); and
    iv. Incidental non-dietary ingestion of soil from pesticide-treated
residential areas.
    Post-application exposures from various activities following lawn
treatment are considered to be the most common and significant in
residential settings. Exposure via incidental non-dietary ingestion
involving other plant material may occur but is expected to result in
much less exposure than the four exposure scenarios listed above.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative
risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made
a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to trifloxystrobin and any
other substances and trifloxystrobin 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 trifloxystrobin
has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For
information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a
common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of
such chemicals, see EPA's website at 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 (``10X'') 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 database on toxicity and
exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different
margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional
margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA safety factor. 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 FQPA
safety factor value based on the use of traditional UFs and/or special
FQPA safety factors, as appropriate.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is no indication of
increased susceptibility of rat or rabbits to trifloxystrobin. In the
developmental and reproduction toxicity studies, effects in the
fetuses/offspring were observed only at or above treatment levels which
resulted in evidence of parental toxicity.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show that it
would be safe for infants and children to reduce the FQPA safety factor
to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings:
    i. The toxicity database for trifloxystrobin is complete except for
an acute neurotoxicity study which is classified as unacceptable. The
toxicity database contains developmental toxicity studies in two
species (rats and rabbits) and a 2-generation reproduction study in
rats which are adequate to assess prenatal and/or postnatal
susceptibility to infants and children. Although the available,
submitted acute neurotoxicity study was found to be unacceptable, based
on a weight-of-the evidence review of the available data, the lack of
this study does not impact the Agency's ability to make an FQPA safety
factor decision. Since there was no evidence of neurotoxicity in this
study at the limit dose nor in the other subchronic and chronic studies
in the database, there is no uncertainty concerning neurotoxic effects
and EPA has reliable data to show that removal of the FQPA safety
factor is safe for children. Additionally, these data demonstrate that
a developmental neurotoxicity study is not required for this pesticide.
    ii. There is no residual concern for prenatal or postnatal toxicity
or increased sensitivity in infants and children. In both the rat
developmental study and the 2-generation reproduction studies there
were no effects in fetal animals or offspring at the highest dose
tested. Although developmental effects were seen in the rabbit
developmental study, there was a clear NOAEL identified for these
effects and that NOAEL was used in setting the aPAD. Moreover, adverse
effects were seen in the adult animals in this study at a lower level.
    iii. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. Conservative ground water and
surface water modeling estimates were used. Similarly, conservative
assumptions were used to assess post-application exposure to children
as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will
not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by trifloxystrobin.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    Safety is assessed for acute and chronic risks by comparing
aggregate exposure to the pesticide to the aPAD and cPAD. The aPAD and
cPAD are calculated by dividing the LOC by all applicable UFs. For
linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the probability of additional
cancer cases given aggregate exposure. Short-term, intermediate-term,
and long-term risks are evaluated by comparing aggregate exposure to
the LOC to ensure that the MOE called for by the product of all
applicable UFs is not exceeded.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to trifloxystrobin will occupy <  1% of the aPAD for females 13 to 49
years old.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to
trifloxystrobin from food and water will utilize 52% of the cPAD for
all infants less than 1 year old. Based on the use pattern, chronic
residential exposure to residues of trifloxystrobin is not expected to
underestimate risk to adults or children.

    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).
    Trifloxystrobin is currently registered for uses that could result
in short-term residential exposure and the Agency has determined that
it is appropriate to aggregate chronic food and water and short-term
exposures for trifloxystrobin.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded that food, water, and residential
exposures aggregated result in aggregate dermal MOEs of 1,200 and 670
for the U.S. population and all infants < 1 year old, respectively, and
an oral MOE of 150 for all infants < 1 year old.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term exposure (1 to 6
months) to the parent trifloxystrobin is not expected to occur in
residential settings due to its short half-life (about 2 days based on
soil and aquatic metabolism studies). Therefore, an intermediate-term
aggregate risk assessment was not performed.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. EPA has classified
trifloxystrobin as a ``not likely human carcinogen,'' and EPA considers
trifloxystrobin to pose no greater than a negligible cancer risk.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to trifloxystrobin residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An adequate gas chromatography with nitrogen phosphorus detector
(GC/NPD) method (Method AG-659A) is available for enforcing tolerances
for the combined residues of trifloxystrobin and CGA-321113 in plant
commodities.
    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 Canadian maximum residue levels (MRLs) for
trifloxystrobin. Codex and Mexican MRLs have been established for
trifloxystrobin in or on various commodities; however, there are no
Mexican MRLs for the commodities associated with the proposed uses.
Codex MRLs have been established on carrots (0.1 ppm) and strawberry
(0.2 ppm), which differs from the MRL calculated by the MRL spreadsheet
for strawberry (1.1 ppm). Also, the residue definition for both Codex
and Mexican MRLs includes only parent compound in plant commodities,
but the definition for Codex MRLs in livestock commodities includes
parent and the acid metabolite, CGA321113. Harmonization in plant
commodities is not possible at this time as the current U.S. tolerance
definition includes the combined residues of trifloxystrobin and its
free acid metabolite.

C. Response to Comments

    One comment was received from a private citizen who opposed the
authorization to sell any pesticide that leaves a residue on food. The
Agency has received this same comment from this commenter on numerous
previous occasions and rejects it for the reasons previously stated in
the Federal Register of 70 FR 1349, 1354 (January 7, 2005).

D. Explanation of Tolerance Revisions

    Bayer CropScience requested a reduction in the pre-harvest interval
from 30 to 7 days for citrus and a corresponding modification of the
tolerance. The submitted field trial data and processing studies are
adequate to support this request. As a result, tolerance expressions
have been revised from 0.4 to 0.6 ppm for fruit, citrus, group 10; and
36 to 38 ppm for citrus, oil.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, the tolerances are established for combined residues of
trifloxystrobin, Benzeneacetic acid, (E,E)-[alpha]-(methoxyimino)-2-
[[[[1-[3-(trifluoromethyl) phenyl]ethylidene]amino]oxy]methyl]-, methyl
ester, and the free form of its acid metabolite CGA-321113 (E,E)-
methoxyimino-[2-[1-(3-trifluoromethyl-phenyl)-
ethylideneaminooxymethyl]-phenyl]acetic acid, in or on asparagus at
0.07 ppm; papaya at 0.7 ppm; sapote, black at 0.7 ppm; canistel at 0.7
ppm; sapote, mamey at 0.7 ppm; mango at 0.7 ppm; sapodilla at 0.7 ppm;
star apple at 0.7 ppm; vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B
at 0.1 ppm; and radish, tops at 10 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10 at 0.6
ppm; citrus, oil at 38 ppm; citrus, dried pulp at 1.0 ppm; and
strawberry at 1.1 ppm.

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, 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) or Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections
subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any special considerations
under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 6, 2000) do not apply to this rule. In addition, This
rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section

12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: December 20, 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. In Sec.  180.555, the table to paragraph (a) is amended by revising
the entries for ``Citrus, dried pulp'' ``Citrus, oil'' and ``Fruit,
citrus, group 10,'' and by alphabetically adding new commodities to
read as follows:

Sec.  180.555  Trifloxystrobin.

    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Commodity                        Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
Asparagus............................................               0.07
                                * * * * *
Canistel.............................................                0.7
                                * * * * *
Citrus, dried pulp...................................                1.0
Citrus, oil..........................................                 38
                                * * * * *
Fruit, citrus, group 10..............................                0.6
                                * * * * *
Mango................................................                0.7
                                * * * * *
Papaya...............................................                0.7
                                * * * * *
Radish, tops.........................................                 10
                                * * * * *
Sapodilla............................................                0.7
Sapote, black........................................                0.7
Sapote, mamey........................................                0.7
                                * * * * *
Star apple...........................................                0.7
Strawberry...........................................                1.1
                                * * * * *
Vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B......                0.1
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-25396 Filed 12-31-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 76 (Wednesday, April 20, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22036-22038]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9580]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2007-1036; FRL-9297-1]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; State of
Colorado; Interstate Transport of Pollution Revisions for the 1997 8-
Hour Ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS: ``Interference With Visibility''
Requirement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is partially approving the Colorado Interstate Transport
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision, submitted on March 31, 2010,
addressing the requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997 ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS), and the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Specifically, in this Federal Register action EPA is fully approving
those portions of the Colorado March 31, 2010 submission that address
the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement prohibiting a state's
emissions from interfering with any other state's required measures to
protect visibility for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. This
action is being taken under section 110 of the CAA.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective May 20, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R08-OAR-2007-1036. All documents in the docket are listed on
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at
all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4
p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurel Dygowski, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
    (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air
Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
    (iv) The words Colorado and State mean the State of Colorado.

Table of Contents

I. Background Information
II. Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

I. Background Information

    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated new NAAQS for 8-hour ozone and
for fine particulate matter (PM2.5). This action is being
taken in response to the promulgation of the 1997 8-hour ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS. Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to
submit SIPs to address a new or revised NAAQS within 3 years after
promulgation of such standards, or within such shorter period as EPA
may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) lists the elements that such new SIPs
must address, as applicable, including section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which
pertains to interstate transport of certain emissions.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA requires that a SIP must contain
adequate provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions
activity within the state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts
which will: (1) Contribute significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS
in any other state; (2) interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS by any
other state; (3) interfere with any other state's required measures to
prevent significant deterioration of air quality; or (4) interfere with
any other state's required measures to protect visibility.
    On June 11, 2008, the State of Colorado submitted to EPA an
Interstate Transport SIP addressing all four elements of the interstate
transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997
ozone and

PM2.5 NAAQS. In response to EPA's concerns regarding the
June 11, 2008 submission, the State later submitted two superceding
interstate transport SIP revisions: (a) A June 18, 2009 submission
addressing the requirements of elements (1) and (2) of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS; and (b) a March 31, 2010
submission addressing the requirements of elements (3) and (4) for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and of elements (1) through (4) for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    On February 14, 2011, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPR) for the State of Colorado. The NPR proposed approval of the
sections of the Colorado Interstate Transport SIP submitted March 31,
2010 that address the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) ``interference with
visibility protection'' requirement for the 1997 ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS.

II. Final Action

    EPA is partially approving the sections of the Colorado Interstate
Transport SIP submitted March 31, 2010 that address the section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) ``interference with visibility protection''
requirement for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. On January
13, 2010, the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) adopted
interstate transport SIP revisions addressing the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, and the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS. Colorado submitted these revisions to EPA on
March 31, 2010. In this Federal Register action EPA is proposing to
approve the sections of the March 31, 2010 submissions that address
element (4), ``interference with visibility protection,'' of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i).
    As noted earlier, in this rulemaking EPA is evaluating only the
Colorado SIP revisions of the March 31, 2010 submission that address
the requirements of element (4), prohibiting sources in Colorado from
emitting pollutants from interfering with any other state's measures to
protect visibility, for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA
has already taken final action on elements (1) and (2) for ozone (see
75 FR 31306 and 75 FR 71029, respectively). EPA will be taking action
on elements (1)-(3) for PM2.5 and element (3) for ozone in a
separate action.

III. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, 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 by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    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 the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 20, 2011. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Sulfur
oxides.

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

    Dated: April 6, 2011.
Carol Rushin,
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart G--Colorado

0
2. Section 52.352 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  52.352  Interstate transport.

    Addition to the Colorado State Implementation Plan of the Colorado
Interstate Transport SIP regarding the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard for
the ``significant contribution'', the ``interfere with maintenance'',
and ``interference with visibility protection'' requirements, submitted
by the Governor's designee on June 18, 2009 and March 31, 2010.

[FR Doc. 2011-9580 Filed 4-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 15, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28591-28592]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11731]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP10-837-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Transmission, Inc.
    Description: DTI--Operational Gas Sales Report--2012 to be
effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 5/4/12.
    Accession Number: 20120504-5018.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/16/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP12-726-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC.
    Description: LSS and SS-2 Rates Tracker Filing to be effective 5/1/
2012.
    Filed Date: 5/8/12.
    Accession Number: 20120508-5061.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP12-727-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC.
    Description: LSS and SS-2 Fuel Tracker Filing to be effective 6/1/
2012.
    Filed Date: 5/8/12.
    Accession Number: 20120508-5066.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP12-728-000.
    Applicants: Leaf River Energy Center LLC.
    Description: Leaf River Energy Center LLC--Proposed Revisions to
FERC Gas Tariff to be effective 6/7/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/8/12.
    Accession Number: 20120508-5070.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP12-729-000.
    Applicants: CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company, LLC.

    Description: CEGT LLC--Revised Revenue Crediting--May 2012 to be
effective 5/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/8/12.
    Accession Number: 20120508-5113.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/12.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, and service can be found at:
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other
information, call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-
8659.

    Dated: May 9, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-11731 Filed 5-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 17, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42736-42739]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16904]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0107; FRL-9391-6]
RIN 2070-ZA16

Spirotetramat; Proposed Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document proposes to establish tolerances for residues of
spirotetramat in or on persimmon and sweet corn, kernel plus cob with
husks removed; and to revise established tolerances in or on feijoa,
papaya, and Spanish lime under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 16, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0107, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm. Additional
instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. This Proposal

    EPA, on its own initiative, under FFDCA section 408(e), 21 U.S.C.
346a(e), is proposing to establish a tolerance for residues of the
insecticide spirotetramat, in or on corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with
husks removed at 1.5 parts per million (ppm). Additionally, EPA has
noted several errors published in 40 CFR 180.641 that the Agency is
also proposing to correct. Established tolerances for residues of
spirotetramat in or on feijoa, papaya, and Spanish lime in 40 CFR

180.641(a)(1) are incorrectly listed and the previously recommended
tolerance for residues in or on persimmon is missing. The tolerances
are proposed to be corrected as follows: Feijoa from 0.30 ppm to 2.5
ppm; papaya from 2.5 ppm to 0.40 ppm; Spanish lime from 0.60 ppm to 13
ppm; and persimmon at 2.5 ppm.

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. . .
.''
    EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. For further discussion of the
regulatory requirements of FFDCA section 408 and a complete description
of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/1997/November/Day-26/p30948.htm.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to
make a determination on aggregate exposure, consistent with FFDCA
section 408(b)(2), for tolerances for residues of spirotetramat in or
on corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed; feijoa; papaya;
Spanish lime; and persimmon. As discussed below, EPA is relying upon
the findings in the preamble to the May 15, 2013 rule establishing
tolerances for spirotetramat (78 FR 28507) (FRL-9382-8) and supporting
risk assessments to establish and revise these tolerances.
    On May 15, 2013, EPA published a final rule establishing tolerances
for residues of the insecticide spirotetramat, (cis-3-(2,5-
dimethlyphenyl)-8-methoxy-2-oxo-1-azaspiro[4.5]dec-3-en-4-yl-ethyl
carbonate) and its metabolites in or on taro leaves; watercress;
pomegranate; banana; bulb vegetable group 3-07; low growing berry,
except strawberry, subgroup 13-07H; bushberry subgroup 13-07B; globe
artichoke; pome fruit group 11-10; fruiting vegetable group 8-10;
citrus fruit group 10-10; pineapple; coffee, green bean; and instant
coffee, based on EPA's conclusion that aggregate exposure to
spirotetramat is safe for the general population, including infants and
children. In addition to the tolerances listed above, EPA also
considered the following uses in the risk assessments that supported
the May 15, 2013 final rule: persimmon and sweet corn, kernel plus cob
with husks removed; and revised tolerances in or on feijoa, papaya, and
Spanish lime.
    Since the publication of the May 15, 2013 final rule, the toxicity
profile of spirotetramat has not changed, and the risk assessments that
supported the establishment of those spirotetramat tolerances published
in the May 15, 2013 Federal Register remain valid. Those risk
assessments also recommended the proposed new uses and revised
tolerances listed above. Therefore, EPA is relying on those risk
assessments in order to propose the new and revised tolerances. For a
detailed discussion of the aggregate risk assessments and determination
of safety for the proposed tolerances, please refer to the May 15, 2013
Federal Register document and its supporting documents, available at
http://www.regulations.gov. EPA relies upon those supporting risk
assessments and the findings made in the Federal Register document in
support of this proposed rule.

IV. Background for This Proposal

    On February 4, 2011, President Barack Obama and the Prime Minister
of Canada, Stephen Harper, announced the creation of the United States-
Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) in order to increase
regulatory transparency and coordination between the two countries. One
of the areas of focus of the RCC is in agricultural production, in
particular, the further alignment of crop protection product approvals
and establishment of U.S. tolerances and Canadian maximum residue
limits (MRLs) for major and minor uses of pesticides in both countries.
    One action item identified through the activities of the RCC was
the initiation of a pilot project for the joint review of residue data
for spirotetramat in the United States and Canada, whereby both
countries would work together to further align practices and
tolerances/MRLs resulting from the joint review of domestic and import
tolerances/MRLs in both countries.
    Although Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) had
received a petition for the use of spirotetramat on sweet corn in
Canada, EPA did not. So, as part of the RCC pilot project to work
together and align tolerances/MRLs, EPA is proposing a tolerance
without U.S. registration for residues of spirotetramat and its
metabolites and degradates in or on corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with
husks removed based on the evaluation of the sweet corn residue data.
As noted above, EPA has also considered the sweet corn use in its risk
assessments, and has made a determination of safety finding for the
use. Additional information regarding the RCC pilot project may be
found at the following Web site: http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/international/naftatwg/us-canada-rcc.html.
    In addition to the proposed use of spirotetramat in or on sweet
corn, EPA has identified several errors contained in 40 CFR 180.641.
EPA is also proposing to correct these errors. Established tolerances
for residues of spirotetramat in or on feijoa, papaya, and Spanish lime
in 40 CFR 180.641(a)(1) are incorrectly listed and the previously
recommended tolerance for residues in or on persimmon is missing. The
tolerances are proposed to be corrected as follows: Feijoa from 0.30
ppm to 2.5 ppm; papaya from 2.5 ppm to 0.40 ppm; Spanish lime from 0.60
ppm to 13 ppm; and persimmon at 2.5 ppm.
    In the last risk assessment relied upon for the May 15, 2013 rule,
EPA took a conservative approach by utilizing tolerance values of 2.5
ppm for feijoa (which is higher than the established tolerance), papaya
(which is the value of the established tolerance), and persimmon and 13
ppm for Spanish lime (which is higher than the established tolerance).
    Based on the risk assessments and information described above, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to spirotetramat residues. Further information about EPA's
risk assessment and determination of safety supporting the tolerances
established in the May 15, 2013 Federal Register action, as well as the
proposed new and revised spirotetramat tolerances can be found at
http://www.regulations.gov in the document entitled: ``Spirotetramat.

Human-Health Risk Assessment for the Proposed Uses in/on Taro, Leaves;
Watercress; Pomegranate; Banana; Vegetable, Bulb, Group 3-07; Low
growing Berry Subgroup 13-07H, Except Strawberry and Lowbush Blueberry;
Bushberry Subgroup 13-07B; Artichoke, Globe; Vegetable, Fruiting, Group
8-10; Fruit, Pome, Group 11-10; Fruit, Citrus, Group 10-10; Pineapple;
and Coffee; and Tolerances without U.S. Registration in/on Corn, Sweet,
Kernel Plus Cob with Husks Removed as Part of the U.S.-Canada
Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) Pilot Project.'' Further
information regarding correcting the errors for spirotetramat in 40 CFR
180.641 may be found in the document: ``Spirotetramat: Acute and
Chronic Dietary (Food and Drinking Water) Exposure and Risk Assessment
to Support the Section 3 Registration Request For Use of Spirotetramat
on Taro, Leaves; Watercress; Pomegranate; Banana; Vegetable, Bulb,
Group 3-07; Low growing Berry Subgroup 13-07H, Except Strawberry and
Lowbush Blueberry; Bushberry Subgroup 13-07B; Artichoke, Globe;
Vegetable, Fruiting, Group 8-10; Fruit, Pome, Group 11-10; Fruit,
Citrus, Group 10-10; Pineapple; and Coffee; and Tolerances without U.S.
Registration in/on Corn, Sweet, Kernel Plus Cob with Husks Removed as
Part of the U.S.-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) Pilot
Project.'' Both documents may be found in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2012-0107.

V. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology, a high-performance liquid
chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS/MS), is available
to enforce the tolerance expression.
    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has established a MRL for spirotetramat in or on papaya
at 0.4 mg/kg. While the EPA originally assessed for a tolerance in or
on papaya at 0.35 ppm, the Agency is proposing to revise the tolerance
to 0.40 ppm in order to harmonize with Codex. There is no risk concern
with proposing a tolerance in or on papaya at 0.40 ppm because EPA
assessed the dietary estimates using the conservative assumption of 2.5
ppm in the risk assessments supporting the use. Therefore, the dietary
estimate is expected to slightly decrease upon the establishment of the
revised papaya tolerance.

VI. Conclusion

    Tolerances are proposed for residues of spirotetramat in corn,
sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed at 1.5 ppm, and persimmon at
2.5 ppm. Amended tolerances are also proposed in or on feijoa from 0.30
ppm to 2.5 ppm; papaya from 2.5 ppm to 0.40 ppm; and Spanish lime from
0.60 ppm to 13 ppm.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This proposed rule proposes to establish tolerances under FFDCA
section 408(d). 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 proposed rule has been exempted from review under
Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this proposed
rule 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). This proposed 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) (2 U.S.C. 1501 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); 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) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).
    Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Agency previously assessed whether
establishment of tolerances, exemptions from tolerances, raising of
tolerance levels, expansion of exemptions, or revocations might
significantly impact a substantial number of small entities and
concluded that, as a general matter, these actions do not impose a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
These analyses for tolerance establishments and modifications, and for
tolerance revocations were published on May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950) and
on December 17, 1997 (62 FR 66020), respectively, and were provided to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
Taking into account this analysis, and available information concerning
the pesticides listed in this proposed rule, the Agency hereby
certifies that this proposed action will not have significant negative
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Any comments
about the Agency's determination should be submitted to the EPA along
with comments on the proposal, and will be addressed prior to issuing a
final rule.
    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
proposed 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 FFDCA section
408(n)(4). For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this
proposed 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 9, 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 proposed 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 proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: July 2, 2013.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as
follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.641, in the table in paragraph (a), alphabetically add
the commodities ``Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed'' and
``Persimmon'' and revise the entries for ``Feijoa'', ``Papaya'' and
``Spanish lime,'' and footnote 1 to read as follows:

Sec.  180.641  Spirotetramat; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed \1\........         1.5

                                * * * * *
Feijoa.....................................................         2.5

                                * * * * *
Papaya.....................................................         0.40

                                * * * * *
Persimmon..................................................         2.5

                                * * * * *
Spanish lime...............................................        13

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no U.S. registrations as of [date of effective date of
  final rule] for use on corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks
  removed.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-16904 Filed 7-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P