Reader’s Guide Acetic Acid and Salts

CRM: Joy Schnackenbeck

EPA/OPPTS/OPP/SRRD

Reader’s Guide to Acetic Acid and Salts Docket # EPA-HQ-2008-0016

Publication Date: March 27, 2008

EPA has created this document to provide an organizational structure to
the Acetic Acid and Salts docket. The docket index lists the caption
entries sequentially, while this document lists them by subject matter.
The Agency is providing the “Readers Guide” to allow the reader to
more easily access and navigate the various entries contained in the
Acetic Acid and Salts docket.

Federal Register and Docket Organizational Documents:

Docket Entry 1. Federal Register Notice:  Acetic acid and salts
Reregistration Review

Docket Entry 2.  Reader’s Guide to Acetic Acid and Salts Docket #
EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0016

Docket Entry 3.  Acetic Acid and Salts Summary Document Registration
Review:  Initial Docket March 27, 2008

Docket Entry 4.  Usage Report in Support of Registration Review for the
herbicide, Acetic Acid

Docket Entry 5.  Appendix A (Food/Feed & Non-Food/Non-Feed Uses Eligible
for Reregistration) Acetic Acid

Docket Entry 6.  Appendix B (Food/Feed & Non-Food/Non-Feed Uses Eligible
for Reregistration) Sodium Diacetate


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 116 (Monday, June 17, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27930-27932]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12621]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0418; Product Identifier 2016-CE-041-AD; Amendment
39-19645; AD 2019-10-06]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Aviat Aircraft Inc. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Aviat Aircraft Inc. Models A-1C-180 and A-1C-200 airplanes equipped
with a Rapco part number RA1798-00-1 fuel vent check valve installed on
either wing or both. This AD was prompted by a report that the fuel
tank vent check valves are sticking in the closed position causing fuel
starvation to the engine. This AD requires revision of the airplane
flight manual (AFM) to add a pre-flight check of the fuel vent check
valves for proper operation and replacing any inoperative fuel vent
check valve with an airworthy part. We are issuing this AD to address
the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective July 22, 2019.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of July 22,
2019.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Aviat Aircraft Inc., P.O. Box 1240, Afton, WY 83110; phone
(307) 885-3151; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
internet: http://aviataircraft.com. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Policy and Innovation Division, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on
the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0418.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0418; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Docket Operations, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard R. Thomas, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, Denver Aircraft Certification Office (ACO) Branch, 26805
East 68th Avenue, Room 214, Denver, Colorado 80249; phone: (303) 342-
1085; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Aviat Aircraft Inc.
(Aviat) Models A-1C-180 and A-1C-200 airplanes equipped with Rapco part
number (P/N) RA1798-00-1 fuel vent check valves. The NPRM published in
the Federal Register on May 5, 2017 (82 FR 21142). The NPRM was
prompted by a report of the fuel tank vent check valves sticking in the
closed position causing fuel starvation to the engine. The incident
airplane was equipped with Rapco P/N RA1798-00-1 fuel vent check
valves. As designed, the check valve ball seat on this P/N valve is
nearly the same diameter as the ball and the ball can readily wedge
itself in the seat and block the fuel tank vent. The NPRM proposed to
require revising the AFM to add a pre-flight check of the fuel vent
check valves for proper operation and replacing any inoperative fuel
vent check valve with a Dukes P/N 1798-00-1 fuel check valve.

Actions Since the NPRM was Issued

    Since we issued the NPRM, Aviat designed a new fuel vent check
valve, P/N 38266-501, that can be installed in place of the Rapco fuel
vent check valve. We determined this Aviat fuel vent check valve is not
subject to the unsafe condition. We also determined that the Dukes fuel
vent check valve, P/N 1798-00-1, cannot be installed to replace a Rapco
fuel vent check valve due to a difference in length. Accordingly, we
revised paragraph (i) of this AD to require replacing inoperative Rapco
fuel vent check valves with Aviat valves instead of Dukes valves. We
also removed the note from the Applicability section that referenced
the Dukes valve.
    We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these
products.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this final rule. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the
determination of the cost to the public.

Additional Changes Made to the Final Rule

    We updated the on-condition parts cost to reflect that removing and
replacing the Rapco fuel vent check valve requires cutting a hole in
the wing skin and installing an access cover over the hole once the
valve has been replaced. We added the minimal cost of this cover to the
on-condition parts cost. Labor cost was unaffected by the cover
installation.
    We clarified the requirement to amend the AFM and added a fourth
step to the AFM amendment to alert the owner/operator (pilot) that an
inoperative check valve must be replaced in accordance with this AD. We
also removed the requirement to make a maintenance entry under part 43,
as revising a flight manual is not a maintenance action. A record of
the AFM change must still be made as required by 14 CFR
91.417(a)(2)(v).
    We refined the requirements to remove and replace an inoperative
fuel vent check valve by removing the references to steps 4 and 9 of
the service information. Step 4 of the service information is no longer
necessary due to other changes to this AD, and step 9 is unnecessary
for this AD because it is required by standard maintenance practices
under 14 CFR part 43. We also changed the language regarding replacing
both valves with valves that

are unaffected by this AD from ``the repetitive pre-flight checks
required in paragraph (g) of this AD are terminated'' to ``you may
remove the AFM revisions required by paragraph (g) of this AD.'' This
change makes it clear that operators do not need an alternative method
of compliance (AMOC) to return the AFM to its pre-AD configuration if
they remove both Rapco valves.
    Lastly, we added a second email address for requesting an AMOC.
Requests must be submitted to both the assigned Aviation Safety
Engineer and the Denver ACO Branch general email addresses.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed except
for the changes previously discussed. We have determined that these
changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Aviat Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 33, Initial
Release, dated November 11, 2016. The service bulletin contains
procedures for checking the fuel vent check valve on each wing of the
airplane for proper operation and replacing any inoperative fuel vent
check valve. This service information is reasonably available because
the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 98 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-flight check of the fuel vent       .5 work-hour x $85 per               N/A          $42.50          $4,165
 check valve for proper operation as     hour = $42.50 per pre-
 incorporated in the aircraft flight     flight check.
 manual.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We conservatively estimated the cost to do a single pre-flight
check. We recognize the pilot is allowed to perform this check without
the assistance of a mechanic, which will significantly reduce the
estimated cost. We further recognize that an individual airplane will
require this check every pre-flight from the issuance of this AD until
the end of its useful life as long as at least one P/N RA1798-00-1 fuel
vent check valve is installed on either wing. We have no way of
determining the total cost of repeating this check every pre-flight
either for a single product or for all U.S. operators.
    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements
that will be required based on the results of the pre-flight check. We
have no way of determining the number of airplanes that may need these
replacements.

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                         Labor cost                Parts cost           Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remove and replace inoperative fuel  2 work-hours (1 work-hour    $330 per fuel vent      $525 per fuel vent
 vent check valve.                    to remove and 1 work-hour    check valve and $25     check valve. ($1050
                                      to replace) x $85 per hour   per access cover.       to remove and replace
                                      = $170 per fuel vent check   ($710 for both.).       both.)
                                      valve. (There are 2 fuel
                                      vent check valves per
                                      airplane = $340 to remove
                                      and replace both.).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The access cover cost is for a solid color. It does not include
custom paint schemes to match an individual airplane.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to small airplanes, gliders,
balloons, airships, domestic business jet transport airplanes, and
associated appliances to the Director of the Policy and Innovation
Division.

Regulatory Findings

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

under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2019-10-06 Aviat Aircraft Inc.: Amendment 39-19645; Docket No. FAA-
2017-0418; Product Identifier 2016-CE-041-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective July 22, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Aviat Aircraft Inc. (Aviat) Models A-1C-180
and A-1C-200 airplanes, serial numbers 3181 through 3282,
certificated in any category, that are equipped with a Rapco part
number (P/N) RA1798-00-1 fuel vent check valve on one or both wings.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 2820, Fuel
Distribution.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report that Rapco P/N RA1798-00-1 fuel
vent check valves are sticking in the closed position. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct failure of the fuel tank vent
check valve, which could result in fuel starvation to the engine and
cause the engine to shut down.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Verify Proper Operation of the Fuel Vent Check Valve on Each Wing

    Before further flight after July 22, 2019 (the effective date of
this AD), revise the airplane flight manual (AFM) as follows:
    (1) Insert into the Limitations Section of the AFM steps 1
through 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions in Aviat Aircraft Inc.
Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 33, Initial Release, dated
November 11, 2016 (Aviat SB, No. 33, IR).
    (2) Immediately following steps 1 through 3, add the following
language to the Limitations Section of the AFM: Step 4. If there is
a stuck fuel vent check valve, it must be replaced in accordance
with AD 2019-10-06 before further flight.
    (3) This AFM revision requires preflight checks of the fuel vent
check valve on each wing. This insertion and the steps therein may
be performed by the owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a
private pilot certificate. The AFM revision must be entered into the
aircraft records showing compliance with this AD in accordance with
14 CFR 91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be maintained as required by
14 CFR 91.417, 121.380, or 135.439.

(h) Remove Inoperative Fuel Vent Check Valve

    If a fuel vent check valve is not operating properly, before
further flight, remove the inoperative valve by following steps 5
and 6 of the Accomplishment Instructions in Aviat SB, No. 33, IR.

(i) Replace Inoperative Fuel Vent Check Valve

    Before further flight after removing any inoperative fuel vent
check valve as required by paragraph (h) of this AD, replace it with
an airworthy fuel vent check valve by following step 8 of the
Accomplishment Instructions in Aviat SB, No. 33, IR. If both fuel
vent check valves, Rapco P/N RA1798-00-1, are replaced with Aviat P/
N 38266-501 fuel vent check valves, you may remove the AFM revisions
required by paragraph (g)(1) and (2) of this AD.

(j) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits are not necessary for the preflight
checks. A special flight permit is allowed for this AD per 14 CFR
39.23 with limitations. Special flight permits are permitted for the
airplane to be flown visual flight rules only to a location where
the inoperative fuel vent check valve can be removed and replaced.
No special flight permits are allowed if both valves are found to be
inoperative.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

(l) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Richard R. Thomas,
Aviation Safety Engineer (ASE), FAA, Denver ACO Branch, 26805 East
68th Avenue, Room 214, Denver, Colorado 80249; phone: (303) 342-
1085; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If an
AMOC is requested by email, it must be sent to both the ASE's email
and the Denver ACO Branch general email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Aviat Aircraft Inc. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 33,
Initial Release, dated November 11, 2016.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Aviat
Aircraft Inc., P.O. Box 1240, Afton, WY 83110; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet:
http://aviataircraft.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Policy and
Innovation Division, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June 10, 2019.
Melvin J. Johnson,
Aircraft Certification Service, Deputy Director, Policy and Innovation
Division, AIR-601.
[FR Doc. 2019-12621 Filed 6-14-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 151 (Thursday, August 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46972-46973]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19301]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #3

July 30, 2015.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2353-007; ER10-2876-013; ER10-2878-012; ER10-
2354-006; ER10-2355-007; ER10-2879-012; ER10-2384-006; ER10-2383-006;
ER10-2880-012; ER11-2107-007; ER11-2108-007; ER10-2888-016; ER13-1745-
007; ER13-1803-008; ER13-1788-007; ER13-1789-007; ER13-1790-008; ER10-
2896-012; ER10-2913-012; ER13-1791-007; ER13-1746-009; ER13-1799-007;
ER13-1801-007; ER13-1802-007; ER10-2916-012; ER10-2915-012; ER12-1525-
012; ER12-2019-011; ER10-2266-003; ER12-2398-011; ER11-3459-011; ER10-
2931-013; ER13-1965-010; ER10-2969-012; ER11-4351-007; ER11-4308-016;
ER11-2805-015; ER10-1580-014; ER10-2382-006; ER11-2856-017; ER10-2356-
006; ER10-2357-006; ER13-2107-007; ER13-2020-007; ER13-2050-007; ER14-
2820-006; ER14-2821-006; ER11-2857-017; ER10-2359-005; ER10-2360-006;
ER10-2369-005; ER10-2947-012; ER10-2381-005; ER10-2575-005; ER10-2361-
006.
    Applicants: Lookout Windpower, LLC, Louisiana Generating LLC,
Middletown Power LLC, Midway-Sunset Cogeneration Company, Midwest
Generation LLC, Montville Power LLC, Mountain Wind Power, LLC, Mountain
Wind Power II LLC, NEO Freehold-Gen LLC, North Community Turbines LLC,
North Wind Turbines LLC, Norwalk Power LLC, NRG Bowline LLC, NRG
California South LP, NRG Canal LLC, NRG Chalk Point LLC, NRG Delta LLC,
NRG Energy Center Dover LLC, NRG Energy Center Paxton LLC, NRG Florida
LP, NRG Marsh Landing LLC, NRG Potomac River LLC, NRG Power Midwest LP,
NRG REMA LLC, NRG Rockford LLC, NRG Rockford II LLC, NRG Solar Alpine
LLC, NRG Solar Avra Valley LLC, NRG Solar Blythe LLC--NRG Solar Borrego
I LLC, NRG Solar Roadrunner LLC, NRG Sterlington Power LLC, NRG
Wholesale Generation LP, Oswego Harbor Power LLC, Pinnacle Wind, LLC,
Reliant Energy Northeast LLC, RRI Energy Services, LLC, Saguaro Power
Company, a Limited Partnership, San Juan Mesa Wind Project, LLC, Sand
Drag LLC, Sierra Wind, LLC, Sleeping Bear, LLC, Solar Partners I, LLC,
Solar Partners II, LLC, Solar Partners VIII, LLC, Spring Canyon Energy
II LLC, Spring Canyon Energy III LLC, Sun City Project LLC--Sunrise
Power Company, LLC, TAIR Windfarm, LLC, Taloga Wind, LLC, Vienna Power
LLC, Walnut Creek Energy, LLC, Watson Cogeneration Company, Wildorado
Wind, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of NRG MBR
Sellers [Part 2].
    Filed Date: 7/29/15.
    Accession Number: 20150729-5191.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2313-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: ISA 4209 & Revised ICSA
4037, Queue No. Z1-090; Cancellation of SA 2107 & 3769 to be effective
6/30/2015.
    Filed Date: 7/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150730-5170.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2314-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Florida, LLC.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: City of Winter Park--
Amendment to SA No. 144 to be effective 7/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 7/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150730-5182.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2315-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 1166R25 Oklahoma Municipal
Power Authority NITSA and NOA to be effective 7/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 7/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150730-5197.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2316-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: EGSL-SRMPA 2nd Extension
of Interim Agreement to be effective 7/31/2015.
    Filed Date: 7/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150730-5206.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    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.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings 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<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 30, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-19301 Filed 8-5-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE

ANN ARBOR, MI  48105-2498

									     OFFICE OF

									AIR AND RADIATION

2/25/16

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Test Procedure Review with Cummins, Volvo, Navistar, Paccar,
Daimler Eaton and Allison

FROM: James Sanchez

TO:  Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards
for Medium- and

Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles - Phase 2 - Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827

This memo documents communication on February 25, 2016 between
representatives of Cummins, Volvo, Navistar, Paccar, Eaton, Allison,
Daimler, Caterpillar, Hino, EMA and EPA to discuss heavy-duty test
procedures proposed in the Phase 2 greenhouse gas and fuel efficiency
standards for heavy-duty vehicles notice of proposed rulemaking.

Participants:

Allison – Mike Howenstein

Caterpillar – George Lin

Cummins – Jackie Yeager, Manik Narula

Daimler – Gerald Freitag, David Kayes, Inderpal Singh

Eaton –

EMA –

EPA – James Sanchez

Hino – Mark Siddall

Navistar – Dave Gardner, Laura Ricart, Matt Hunkler

PACCAR – Mark Malowicki, Dan Kieffer

Volvo – Marc Miller, Steve Berry

Discussion and follow-up items (with owner's name in bold):

Road grade evaluation – James

James presented data from ORNL powertrain testing.  (Slides were
emailed previously, and the data is available in the docket as part of
the NODA.)

ISX 450 and 400 ratings were tested with TC10 and USP transmissions on
grade profiles from NPRM and new profile D.

Running on profile D shows expected trend of increasing FE benefit with
lower axle ratio, though different absolute improvement levels compared
to NPRM grade profile.

Topics for future calls:

(TBD) SwRI results (N13 365, gasoline engine) – Houshun

(3/10) Road grade evaluation – EPA/James

(3/10) Road grade evaluation – Volvo/Marc

(3/10) Road grade evaluation – Navistar/Matt


This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U. S. C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each week. Rules and Regulations Federal Register 55261 Vol. 68, No. 185 Wednesday, September 24, 2003 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [ OPP   2003   0269; FRL   7326   5]

Cyromazine; Pesticide Tolerance AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of cyromazine in or on leek; onion, green; onion, potato; onion, tree; onion, welsh; shallot, fresh leaves; garlic, bulb; garlic, great headed, bulb; onion, dry bulb; rakkyo, bulb; shallot, bulb; vegetable, brassica, leafy, group 5, except broccoli; broccoli; turnip, greens; cabbage, abyssinian; cabbage, seakale; hanover salad, leaves; kidney of cattle, goat, hog, horse, and sheep; and meat byproducts, except kidney, of cattle, goat, hog, horse, and sheep. The petitioner has requested that existing tolerances for residues of cyromazine in/ on dry bulb onion at 2.0 ppm, green onion at 0.1 ppm, and mustard greens and cabbage, Chinese at 3.0 ppm be deleted. Interregional Research Project Number 4 ( IR   4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 ( FQPA). DATES: This regulation is effective September 24, 2003. Objections and requests for hearings, identified by docket ID number OPP   2003   0269, must be received on or before November 24, 2003. ADDRESSES: Written objections and hearing requests may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit VI. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shaja R. Brothers, Registration Division ( 7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 308   3194; e mail address: brothers. shaja@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information? 1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification ( ID) number OPP   2003   0269. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305   5805. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. A frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 is available at http:// www. access. gpo. gov/ nara/ cfr/ cfrhtml_ 00/ Title_ 40/ 40cfr180_ 00. html, a beta site currently under development. To access the OPPTS Harmonized Guidelines referenced in this document, go directly to the guidelines at http:// www. epa. gov/ opptsfrs/ home/ guidelin. htm. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. 1. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

II. Background and Statutory Findings In the Federal Register of August 6, 2003 ( 68 FR 46616) ( FRL   7319   3), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U. S. C. 346a, as amended by FQPA ( Public Law 104   170), announcing the filing of pesticide petitions ( PP 2E6507 and 2E6510) by IR   4, 681 US Highway # 1 South, New Brunswick, NJ 08902   3390. That notice included a summary of the petitions prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection Incorporated, the registrant. The petitions requested that 40 CFR 180.414 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide, cyromazine, ( Ncyclopropyl 1,3,5 triazine 2,4,6 triamine), in or on the following commodities: leek; onion, green; onion, potato; onion, tree; onion, welsh; and shallot, fresh leaves at 3.0 parts per million ( ppm) ( 2E6507), garlic, bulb; garlic, great headed, bulb; onion, dry bulb; rakkyo, bulb; and shallot, bulb at 0.2 ppm ( 2E6507), vegetable, brassica,

VerDate jul< 14> 2003 11: 32 Sep 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24SER1. SGM 24SER1 55262 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 2003 / Rules and Regulations leafy, group 5, except broccoli at 10.0 ppm ( 2E6510), broccoli at 1.0 ppm, turnip, greens; cabbage, abyssinian; cabbage, seakale; and hanover salad, leaves at 10.0 ppm, and kidney of cattle, goat, hog, horse, and sheep at 0.2 ppm, and meat byproducts, except kidney, of cattle, goat, hog, horse, and sheep at 0.05 ppm ( 2E6510). Section 408( b)( 2)( A)( i) of the 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 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....'' EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. For further discussion of the regulatory requirements of section 408 of the FFDCA and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see the final rule on Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances ( 62 FR 62961, November 26, 1997) ( FRL   5754   7).

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety 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. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure, consistent with section 408( b)( 2) of the FFDCA, for tolerances for residues of cyromazine on leek; onion, green; onion, potato; onion, tree; onion, welsh; and shallot, fresh leaves at 3.0 ppm, garlic, bulb; garlic, great headed, bulb; onion, dry bulb; rakkyo, bulb; and shallot, bulb at 0.2 ppm, vegetable, brassica, leafy, group 5, except broccoli at 10.0 ppm, broccoli at 1.0 ppm, turnip, greens; cabbage, abyssinian; cabbage, seakale; and hanover salad, leaves at 10.0 ppm, and kidney of cattle, goat, hog, horse, and sheep at 0.2 ppm, and meat byproducts, except kidney, of cattle, goat, hog, horse, and sheepat 0.05 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing the 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. The nature of the toxic effects caused by cyromazine are discussed in Table 1 of this unit as well as the no observed adverse effect level ( NOAEL) and the lowest observedadverse effect level ( LOAEL) from the toxicity studies reviewed.

TABLE 1.   SUBCHRONIC, CHRONIC, AND OTHER TOXICITY Guideline No. Study Type Results 870.3100 Subchronic oral Dog The systemic toxicity LOAEL is 1,000 ppm ( 25 mg/ kg/ day) based on alteration in liver weight in males. The systemic toxicity NOAEL is 300 ppm ( 7.5 mg/ kg/ day).

870.3100 Subchronic oral Rat The systemic toxicity LOAEL is 300 ppm ( 30 mg/ kg/ day), based on alteration in the liver weight changes in males. The systemic toxicity NOAEL is 30 ppm ( 3 mg/ kg/ day).

870.3200 21 day dermal toxicity Rabbit No treatment related systemic toxicity was noted. The systemic toxicity NOAEL > 2,000 mg/ kg/ day. The systemic toxicity LOAEL > 2,000 mg/ kg/ day. No dermal irritation was noted. The dermal toxicity NOAEL > 2,000 mg/ kg/ day. The dermal toxicity LOAEL > 2,000 mg/ kg/ day.

870.3200 21 day dermal toxicity Rabbit No treatment related systemic toxicity was noted. The systemic toxicity NOAEL > 2,010 mg/ kg/ day. The systemic toxicity LOAEL > 2,010 mg/ kg/ day. No dermal irritation was noted. The dermal toxicity NOAEL > 2,010 mg/ kg/ day. The dermal toxicity LOAEL > 2,010 mg/ kg/ day.

870.4100 Chronic oral ( 6   months) Dog The systemic toxicity LOAEL is 3,000 ppm ( 75 mg/ kg/ day) based on alteration in hematological parameters ( hemoglobin, and hematocrit). The systemic toxicity NOAEL is 300 ppm ( 7.5 mg/ kg/ day).

870.4300 Combine Chronic/ Carcinogenicity Rat The systemic toxicity LOAEL is 300 ppm ( 15 mg/ kg/ day) based on decreased body weight. The systemic toxicity NOAEL is 30 ppm. ( 1.5 mg/ kg/ day). There is no evidence of carcinogenicity.

870.4200 Carcinogenicity Mouse The systemic toxicity LOAEL is 1,000 ppm ( 150 mg/ kg/ day) based on decreased body weight. The systemic toxicity NOAEL is 50 ppm. ( 7.5 mg/ kg/ day). There is no evidence of carcinogenicity.

VerDate jul< 14> 2003 11: 32 Sep 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24SER1. SGM 24SER1 55263 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 2003 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 1.   SUBCHRONIC, CHRONIC, AND OTHER TOXICITY   Continued Guideline No. Study Type Results 870.3700 Developmental toxicity Rabbit The maternal toxicity LOAEL is 30 mg/ kg/ day, based on reduced body weight gain and food consumption. The maternal toxicity NOAEL is 10 mg/ kg/ day. The developmental toxicity LOAEL was not established. The developmental toxicity NOAEL > 60 mg/ kg/ day ( HDT).

870.3700 Developmental toxicity Rat The maternal toxicity LOAEL is 300 mg/ kg/ day, based on clinical signs ( red or clear nasal discharge) and decreased body weights. The maternal toxicity NOAEL = 100 mg/ kg/ day. The developmental toxicity LOAEL is 600 mg/ kg/ day ( HDT), based on increased incidence of minor skeletal variations. The developmental toxicity NOAEL is 300 mg/ kg/ day.

870.3800 Two generation reproduction Rat The parental systemic toxicity LOAEL is 3,000 ppm ( 150 mg/ kg/ day) based on decreased body weights that were associated with decreased food efficiency. The parental systemic toxicity NOAEL is 1,000 ppm ( 50 mg/ kg/ day). The offspring systemic/ developmental toxicity LOAEL is 3,000 ppm ( 150 mg/ kg/ day), based on decreased body weights at birth and through weaning. The systemic/ developmental toxicity NOAEL is 1,000 ppm ( 50 mg/ kg/ day). No effects were noted on reproductive parameters and no reproductive toxicity LOAEL was determined. The reproductive toxicity NOAEL is   3,000 ppm ( 150 mg/ kg/ day).

870.7485 Metabolism Rat Cyromazine was well absorbed after oral administration. Excretion was rapid at the dose ( 3 mg/ kg), but an apparent delay in excretion occurred at the high dose ( 300 mg/ kg). Fecal elimination was equivalent among dose groups except the high dose males, where a greater percentage was eliminated by this route. The origin of fecal radioactivity was via biliary elimination. Residual radioactivity in tissues was minimal in all dose groups. Urinary and fecal metabolites of 14C cyromazine were isolated and identified by TLC, HPLC, and GC/ MS. The major compounds were the N dealkylated product melamine, hydroxycyromazine, and unmetabolized cyromazine identified.

870.7600 Dermal Absorption Rat Absorption at 10 hrs = 13 %. Cyromazine apparently rapidly absorbed into the skin in an inverse dose related manner. The absorption into the skin is followed by a slower release into the body. The main route of excretion is apparently by the urine. There is no evidence that the compound is sequestered in the skin. Mean absorption based on blood, urinary/ fecal excretion, and carcass, ranged from 0.6 to 7% for animals sacrificed at the end of the exposure periods. For animals exposed for 10 and 24 hours and followed for 48 hours post exposure, mean absorption ranged from 8 to 14.5%. Total radioactivity absorbed generally decreased as dose increased indicating saturation of absorption with increasing dose. Amounts remaining in/ on the skin at termination ranged from 4.5% ( 10 mg dose/ 2 h exposure) to 24% ( 0.1 mg dose/ 24 hour exposure). The majority of the absorbed radioactivity was found in the urine and carcass. Most of the unabsorbed radioactivity was found in the skin washes from each dose/ duration.

870.7600 Dermal Absorption Rat Absorption at 10 hrs = 10%. Mean total recoveries of applied radioactivity from all dose groups ranged from 85 to 101%. Mean absorption based on blood, urinary/ fecal excretion, and carcass, ranged from 2% to 11%. Total radioactivity absorbed generally increased with increasing exposure time but decreased with increasing dose indicating saturation of penetration with increasing dose. The majority of the absorbed radioactivity was found in the urine and carcass. Most of the unabsorbed radioactivity was found in the skin washes from each dose/ duration ( 35   90%). However, based on measurements of skin absorption, a significant amount of radioactive dose was also found in the skin itself ( 9   40%). Mean absorption with inclusion of radioactivity in dissolved skin ranged from 10 to 45%. The ratio of the amount of radioactive dose in the skin wash to the radioactivity in the skin itself decreased with time indicating penetration into the subsurface of the skin with time after treatment.

870.5395 Gene mutation in Hamster ( Chinese) Mutagenic Nucleus Anomaly Negative mutagen.

870.5100 Mutagenic Point Mutation Salmonella typhimurium Negative results for point mutations in TA1537, TA1537, TA98, and TA100 with and without activation.

870.5450 Mutagenic Dominant lethal test species: Mouse Negative mutagen.

VerDate jul< 14> 2003 11: 32 Sep 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24SER1. SGM 24SER1 55264 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 2003 / Rules and Regulations B. Toxicological Endpoints The dose at which no adverse effects are observed ( the NOAEL) from the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment is used to estimate the toxicological level of concern ( LOC). However, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified ( the LOAEL) is sometimes used for risk assessment if no NOAEL was achieved in the toxicology study selected. An uncertainty factor ( UF) is applied to reflect uncertainties inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population as well as other unknowns. An UF of 100 is routinely used, 10X to account for interspecies differences and 10X for intra species differences. For dietary risk assessment ( other than cancer) the Agency uses the UF to calculate an acute or chronic reference dose ( acute RfD or chronic RfD) where the RfD is equal to the NOAEL divided by the appropriate UF ( RfD = NOAEL/ UF). Where an additional safety factors ( SF) is retained due to concerns unique to the FQPA, this additional factor is applied to the RfD by dividing the RfD by such additional factor. The acute or chronic Population Adjusted Dose ( aPAD or cPAD) is a modification of the RfD to accommodate this type of FQPA SF. For non dietary risk assessments ( other than cancer) the UF is used to determine the LOC. For example, when 100 is the appropriate UF ( 10X to account for interspecies differences and 10X for intraspecies differences) the LOC is 100. To estimate risk, a ratio of the NOAEL to exposures ( margin of exposure ( MOE) = NOAEL/ exposure) is calculated and compared to the LOC. The linear default risk methodology ( Q*) is the primary method currently used by the Agency to quantify carcinogenic risk. The Q* approach assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of cancer risk. A Q* is calculated and used to estimate risk which represents a probability of occurrence of additional cancer cases ( e. g., risk is expressed as 1 x 10 6 or one in a million). Under certain specific circumstances, MOE calculations will be used for the carcinogenic risk assessment. In this non linear approach, a `` point of departure'' is identified below which carcinogenic effects are not expected. The point of departure is typically a NOAEL based on an endpoint related to cancer effects though it may be a different value derived from the dose response curve. To estimate risk, a ratio of the point of departure to exposure ( MOEcancer = point of departure/ exposures) is calculated. A summary of the toxicological endpoints for cyromazine used for human risk assessment is shown is shown in Table 2 of this unit:

TABLE 2.   SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSE AND ENDPOINTS FOR CYROMAZINE FOR USE IN HUMAN RISK ASSESSMENT Exposure Scenario Dose Used in Risk Assessment UF Special FQPA SF and Level of Concern for Risk Assessment Study and Toxicological Effects Acute Dietary ( All populations) NA NA An appropriate endpoint attributable to a single dose ( exposure) of cyromazine was not observed in oral toxicity studies. Thus, an acute dietary endpoint was not chosen.

Chronic Dietary ( All populations) NOAEL= 7.5 mg/ kg/ day UF = 100 Chronic RfD = NOAEL/ UF = 0.075 mg/ kg/ day FQPA SF = 1x cPAD = chronic RfD ÷ FQPA SF = 0.075 mg/ kg/ day Chronic Oral Toxicity in Dogs. LOAEL = 75 mg/ kg/ day based on alterations in hematological parameters [ hematocrit and hemoglobin ( males)], decreased body weight/ body weight gain and increases in several organ weights.

Short Term Incidental Oral ( 1   30 days) NOAEL = 10 mg/ kg/ day Residential LOC for MOE = 100 Developmental Toxicity study in rabbits. LOAEL = 30 mg/ kg/ day based on decreases in body weight gain and food consumption.

Intermediate Term Incidental Oral ( 1   6 months) NOAEL = 7.5 mg/ kg/ day Residential LOC for MOE = 100 Chronic Oral Toxicity in Dogs. LOAEL = 75 mg/ kg/ day based on alterations in hematological parameters [ hematocrit and hemoglobin ( males)], decreased body weight/ body weight gain and increases in several organ weights.

Short, Intermediate and Long Term Dermal NA NA No hazard was identified via the dermal route of exposure.

Short Term Inhalation ( 1 to 30 days) Inhalation ( oral) study NOAEL = 10 mg/ kg/ day ( inhalation absorption rate = 100%) Residential LOC for MOE = 100 Chronic Oral Toxicity in Dogs. LOAEL = 75 mg/ kg/ day based on alterations in hematological parameters [ hematocrit and hemoglobin ( males)], decreased body weight/ body weight gain and increases in several organ weights.

Intermediate Term Inhalation ( 1 to 6 months) Inhalation ( or oral) study NOAEL = 7.5 mg/ kg/ day ( inhalation absorption rate = 100%) Residential LOC for MOE = 100 Chronic Oral Toxicity in Dogs. LOAEL = 75 mg/ kg/ day based on alterations in hematological parameters [ hematocrit and hemoglobin ( males)], decreased body weight/ body weight gain and increases in several organ weights.

VerDate jul< 14> 2003 11: 32 Sep 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24SER1. SGM 24SER1 55265 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 2003 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 2.   SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSE AND ENDPOINTS FOR CYROMAZINE FOR USE IN HUMAN RISK ASSESSMENT   Continued Exposure Scenario Dose Used in Risk Assessment UF Special FQPA SF and Level of Concern for Risk Assessment Study and Toxicological Effects Long Term Inhalation (> 6 months) Inhalation ( or oral) study NOAEL = 7.5 mg/ kg/ day ( inhalation absorption rate = 100%) Occupational LOC for MOE = 100 Residential LOC for MOE = 100 Chronic Oral Toxicity in Dogs. LOAEL = 75 mg/ kg/ day based on alterations in hematological parameters [ hematocrit and hemoglobin ( males)], decreased body weight/ body weight gain and increases in several organ weights.

Cancer ( oral, dermal, inhalation) NA NA Group E carcinogen  evidence of non carcinogenicity for humans.

C. Exposure Assessment 1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. Tolerances have been established ( 40 CFR 180.414) for the residues of cyromazine, in or on the following raw agricultural commodities: dry bean, except cowpea, cabbage, chinese; mustard greens, mango, potato, leafy vegetables ( except Brassica) group, cucurbit vegetables group, tomato, onions, mushroom, lima beans and pepper. Cyromazine tolerances are established for milk and tissues of cattle, goat, hog, horse, and sheep as a result of feeding cyromazine treated feed items. Rotational crop tolerances are established for sweet corn, radishes, and cotton. Additionally, cyromazine is registered for use as a feed through treatment for poultry for the control of flies and maggots in poultry manure. As a result of the feed through use, tolerances are established for residues of cyromazine in egg and poultry tissues. Risk assessments were conducted by EPA to assess dietary exposures from cyromazine in food as follows: i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary risk assessments are performed for a food use pesticide if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a one day or single exposure. For this assessment, an appropriate endpoint attributable to a single dose ( exposure) of cyromazine was not observed in oral toxicity studies. ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting this acute dietary risk assessment EPA used the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database ( DEEMFCIDTM which incorporates food consumption data as reported by respondents in the USDA 1994   1996 and 1998 nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals ( CSFII) and accumulated exposure to the chemical for each commodity. The following assumptions were made for the chronic exposure assessment: An unrefined chronic exposure analysis ( Tier 1) was conducted for cyromazine using the DEEM software. The assumptions of the chronic dietary exposure assessment are tolerance level residues and one hundred percent croptreated iii. Cancer. Cyromazine is classified as a Group E carcinogen ( evidence of non carcinogenicity for humans), and was shown not to be carcinogenic in mice or rats following long term dietary administration. The available mutagenicity data suggest that cyromazine does not have genotoxic activity. 2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency lacks sufficient monitoring exposure data to complete a comprehensive dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for cyromazine 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 physical characteristics of cyromazine. The Agency uses the FQPA Index Reservoir Screening Tool ( FIRST) or the Pesticide Root Zone model/ Exposure Analysis Modeling System ( PRZM/ EXAMS), to produce estimates of pesticide concentrations in an index reservoir. The SCI GROW model is used to predict pesticide concentrations in shallow groundwater. For a screeninglevel assessment for surface water EPA will use FIRST ( a tier 1 model) before using PRZM/ EXAMS ( a tier 2 model). The FIRST model is a subset of the PRZM/ EXAMS model that uses a specific high end runoff scenario for pesticides. FIRST and PRZM/ EXAMS incorporate an index reservoir environment, and a percent crop area factor as an adjustment to account for the maximum percent crop coverage within a watershed or drainage basin. None of these models include consideration of the impact processing ( mixing, dilution, or treatment) of raw water for distribution as drinking water would likely have on the removal of pesticides from the source water. The primary use of these models by the Agency at this stage is to provide a screen for sorting out pesticides for which it is unlikely that drinking water concentrations would exceed human health levels of concern. Since the models used are considered to be screening tools in the risk assessment process, the Agency does not use estimated environmental concentrations ( EECs) from these models to quantify drinking water exposure and risk as a % RfD or % PAD. Instead drinking water levels of comparison ( DWLOCs) are calculated and used as a point of comparison against the model estimates of a pesticide's concentration in water. DWLOCs are theoretical upper limits on a pesticide's concentration in drinking water in light of total aggregate exposure to a pesticide in food, and from residential uses. Since DWLOCs address total aggregate exposure to cyromazine they are further discussed in the aggregate risk sections in Unit III. E. In soil, cyromazine is stable to hydrolysis and photolysis and is rather persistent in aerobic soil ( half life value of 150 days). The field studies confirmed this half life value, where average half lives varied from 75 days to more than 250 days. Soil adsorption coefficients are generally low. This would indicate that cyromazine has the potential to leach through soils, especially sand and silt loam soils. The EECs for cyromazine reflect six applications of cyromazine at 0.125 lbs ai/ A. For surface water, the annual average of 15.5 µ g/ L ( or ppb) is based on use of the FIRST model. The groundwater EEC of 5.3 µ g/ L has been estimated by the SCI GROW2 program. Both of these surface and groundwater values represent upper bound conservative estimates for concentrations that might be found in VerDate jul< 14> 2003 11: 32 Sep 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24SER1. SGM 24SER1 55266 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 2003 / Rules and Regulations surface water and groundwater due to the use of cyromazine. 3. From non dietary exposure. The term `` residential exposure'' is used in this document to refer to nonoccupational non dietary exposure ( e. g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Cyromazine is not registered for use on any sites that would result in residential exposure. There are no currently existing or proposed uses for cyromazine in residential or public sites and therefore no residential risk assessment was performed. 4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. Section 408( b)( 2)( D)( v) of the FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider `` available information'' concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and `` other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.'' EPA does not have, at this time, available data to determine whether cyromazine has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. 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 cyromazine and any other substances and cyromazine does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. EPA has determined, however, that there is no known mechanism of toxicity that would support grouping cyromazine by a common mechanism with atrazine, simazine, and cyanazine. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that cyromazine has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see the policy statements released by EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs concerning common mechanism determinations and procedures for cumulating effects from substances found to have a common mechanism on EPA's website at http:// www. epa. gov/ pesticides/ cumulative/.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children 1. In general. Section 408 of the FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the data base on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. Margins of safety are incorporated into EPA risk assessments either directly through use of a MOE analysis or through using uncertainty ( safety) factors in calculating a dose level that poses no appreciable risk to humans. 2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is no evidence of susceptibility and no residual uncertainties for pre and post natal toxicity resulting from exposure to cyromazine. 3. Conclusion. There is a complete toxicity data base for cyromazine and exposure data are complete or are estimated based on data that reasonably accounts for potential exposures. EPA determined that the 10X Safety factor to protect infants and children should be reduced to 1X because:   There is no evidence of increased susceptibility ( quantitative or qualitative) to rats or rabbits following in utero exposure or post natal exposure to rats. In the prenatal developmental toxicity study in rats, the NOAEL for developmental toxicity was higher than the maternal NOAEL. In the developmental toxicity study in rabbits, no evidence of developmental toxicity was noted. For developmental toxicity, the NOAEL was > 60 mg/ kg/ day highest dose tested ( HDT). In the two generation reproduction study in rats no reproductive effects were observed. In this study, the reproductive NOAEL is   150 mg/ kg/ day ( HDT). No neurotoxic effects were observed in the available data, and there is no requirement for a developmental neurotoxicity study. Further, exposure assessments have been conducted in a manner unlikely to underestimate exposure.   The dietary drinking water assessment utilizes water concentration values generated by models and associated modeling parameters which are designed to provide conservative, health protective, high end estimates of water concentrations which will not likely be exceeded.   The dietary food exposure assessment is based on current and proposed registrations and is completely unrefined ( i. e. tolerance level residues and 100% crop treated). The dietary exposure analysis will not underestimate exposure/ risk.   No residual uncertainties were identified in the exposure database.   There are no residential uses for cyromazine. E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety To estimate total aggregate exposure to a pesticide from food, drinking water, and residential uses, the Agency calculates DWLOCs which are used as a point of comparison against the model estimates of a pesticide's concentration in water ( EECs). DWLOC values are not regulatory standards for drinking water. DWLOCs are theoretical upper limits on a pesticide's concentration in drinking water in light of total aggregate exposure to a pesticide in food and residential uses. In calculating a DWLOC, the Agency determines how much of the acceptable exposure ( i. e., the PAD) is available for exposure through drinking water [ e. g., allowable chronic water exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) = cPAD  ( average food + residential exposure)]. This allowable exposure through drinking water is used to calculate a DWLOC. A DWLOC will vary depending on the toxic endpoint, drinking water consumption, and body weights. Default body weights and consumption values as used by the USEPA Office of Water are used to calculate DWLOCs: 2 liter ( L)/ 70 kg ( adult male), 2L/ 60 kg ( adult female), and 1L/ 10 kg ( child). Default body weights and drinking water consumption values vary on an individual basis. This variation will be taken into account in more refined screening level and quantitative drinking water exposure assessments. Different populations will have different DWLOCs. Generally, a DWLOC is calculated for each type of risk assessment used: Acute, short term, intermediate term, chronic, and cancer. When EECs for surface water and groundwater are less than the calculated DWLOCs, OPP concludes with reasonable certainty that exposures to the pesticide in drinking water ( when considered along with other sources of exposure for which OPP has reliable data) would not result in unacceptable levels of aggregate human health risk at this time. Because OPP considers the aggregate risk resulting from multiple exposure pathways associated with a pesticide's uses, levels of comparison in drinking water may vary as those uses change. If new uses are added in the future, OPP will reassess the potential impacts of residues of the pesticide in drinking water as a part of the aggregate risk assessment process. 1. Acute risk. An appropriate endpoint attributable to a single dose ( exposure) of cyromazine was not observed in oral toxicity studies. Thus, an acute dietary endpoint was not chosen, and cyromazine is not expected to pose an acute risk.

VerDate jul< 14> 2003 11: 32 Sep 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24SER1. SGM 24SER1 55267 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to cyromazine from food will utilize 8.3% of the cPAD for the U. S. population, 5.0% of the cPAD for all infants (< 1 year old), 13% of the cPAD for children 1   2 years old, and 7.5% of the cPAD for females 13   49 years old. Based on the use pattern, chronic residential exposure to residues of cyromazine is not expected. In addition, there is potential for chronic dietary exposure to cyromazine in drinking water. After calculating DWLOCs and comparing them to the EECs for surface and ground water, EPA does not expect the aggregate exposure to exceed 100% of the cPAD, as shown in Table 3 of this unit:

TABLE 3.   AGGREGATE RISK ASSESSMENT FOR CHRONIC ( NON CANCER) EXPOSURE TO CYROMAZINE Population Subgroup cPAD ( mg/ kg/ day) % cPAD ( Food) Ground Water EEC ( ppb) Surface Water EEC ( ppb) Chronic DWLOC ( ppb)

General U. S. Population 0.075 8.3 5.3 15.5 2.4 x 103 All Infants (< 1 year old) 0.075 5.0 5.3 15.5 7.1 x 102 Children 1   2 years old 0.075 13 5.3 15.5 6.5 x 102 Females 13   49 years old 0.075 7.5 5.3 15.5 2.1 x 103 3. Aggregate cancer risk for U. S. population. Cyromazine is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans. 4. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, and to infants and children from aggregate exposure to cyromazine residues.

IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology Methods AG   408 ( HPLC,/ UV) and AG   417A ( GLC/ NPD) are the tolerance enforcement methods for cyromazine as published in the Pesticide Analytical Manual ( PAM), Vol. II. These methods combined and with minor modifications comprise Method AG   621. The residue data submitted in support of these petitions were generated using Methods AG   408 and AG   621. Method AG   621 has been adequately validated for use for the determination of residues of cyromazine in/ on bulb vegetables, leafy Brassica vegetables, and turnip greens. Method AG   408 is adequate for enforcement of the proposed tolerance for residues of cyromazine. The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755   5350; telephone number: ( 410) 305   2905; email address: residuemethods@ epa. gov.

B. International Residue Limits Codex, Canadian or Mexican Maximum Residue Limits ( MRLs) are not established for cyromazine in/ on leafy Brassica vegetables, bulb vegetables, and turnip greens. Therefore, no compatability problems exist for the tolerances established by this rule. V. Conclusion Therefore, the tolerances are established for residues of cyromazine, ( N cyclopropyl 1,3,5 triazine 2,4,6 triamine) in or on leek; onion, green; onion, potato; onion, tree; onion, welsh; and shallot, fresh leaves at 3.0 ppm, garlic, bulb; garlic, great headed, bulb; onion, dry bulb; rakkyo, bulb; and shallot, bulb at 0.2 ppm, vegetable, brassica, leafy, group 5, except broccoli at 10.0 ppm, broccoli at 1.0 ppm, turnip, greens; cabbage, abyssinian; cabbage, seakale; and hanover salad, leaves at 10.0 ppm, and kidney of cattle, goat, hog, horse, and sheep at 0.2 ppm, and meat byproducts, except kidney, of cattle, goat, hog, horse, and sheep at 0.05 ppm.

VI. Objections and Hearing Requests 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. Although the procedures in those regulations require some modification to reflect the amendments made to the FFDCA by the FQPA, EPA will continue to use those procedures, with appropriate adjustments, until the necessary modifications can be made. The new section 408( g) of the FFDCA provides essentially the same process for persons to `` object'' to a regulation for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance issued by EPA under new section 408( d) of FFDCA, as was provided in the old sections 408 and 409 of the FFDCA. However, the period for filing objections is now 60 days, rather than 30 days. A. What Do I Need to Do to File an Objection or Request a Hearing?

You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in this unit and in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number OPP   2003   0269 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before November 24, 2003. 1. Filing the request. Your objection must specify the specific provisions in the regulation that you object to, and the grounds for the objections ( 40 CFR 178.25). If a hearing is requested, the objections must include a statement of the factual issues( s) on which a hearing is requested, the requestor's contentions on such issues, and a summary of any evidence relied upon by the objector ( 40 CFR 178.27). Information submitted in connection with an objection or hearing request may be claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the information that does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public record. Information not marked confidential may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Mail your written request to: Office of the Hearing Clerk ( 1900C), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001. You may also deliver your request to the Office of the Hearing Clerk in Rm. 104, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. The Office of the Hearing Clerk is open from 8 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through VerDate jul< 14> 2003 11: 32 Sep 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24SER1. SGM 24SER1 55268 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 2003 / Rules and Regulations Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Office of the Hearing Clerk is ( 703) 603   0061. 2. Tolerance fee payment. If you file an objection or request a hearing, you must also pay the fee prescribed by 40 CFR 180.33( i) or request a waiver of that fee pursuant to 40 CFR 180.33( m). You must mail the fee to: EPA Headquarters Accounting Operations Branch, Office of Pesticide Programs, P. O. Box 360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. Please identify the fee submission by labeling it `` Tolerance Petition Fees.'' EPA is authorized to waive any fee requirement `` when in the judgement of the Administrator such a waiver or refund is equitable and not contrary to the purpose of this subsection.'' For additional information regarding the waiver of these fees, you may contact James Tompkins by phone at ( 703) 305   5697, by e mail at tompkins. jim@ epa. gov, or by mailing a request for information to Mr. Tompkins at Registration Division ( 7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001. If you would like to request a waiver of the tolerance objection fees, you must mail your request for such a waiver to: James Hollins, Information Resources and Services Division ( 7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001. 3. Copies for the Docket. In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in Unit VI. A., you should also send a copy of your request to the PIRIB for its inclusion in the official record that is described in Unit I. B. 1. Mail your copies, identified by docket ID number OPP   2003   0269, to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch, Information Resources and Services Division ( 7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001. In person or by courier, bring a copy to the location of the PIRIB described in Unit I. B. 1. You may also send an electronic copy of your request via e mail to: oppdocket epa. gov. Please use an ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Copies of electronic objections and hearing requests will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 6.1/ 8.0 or ASCII file format. Do not include any CBI in your electronic copy. You may also submit an electronic copy of your request at many Federal Depository Libraries. B. When Will the Agency Grant a Request for a Hearing?

A request for a hearing will be granted if the Administrator determines that the material submitted shows the following: There is a genuine and substantial issue of fact; there is a reasonable possibility that available evidence identified by the requestor would, if established resolve one or more of such issues in favor of the requestor, taking into account uncontested claims or facts to the contrary; and resolution of the factual issues( s) in the manner sought by the requestor would be adequate to justify the action requested ( 40 CFR 178.32).

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews This final rule establishes a tolerance 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 tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA) ( 5 U. S. C. 601 et seq.) do not apply. In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism ( 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' `` Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive order to include regulations that have `` substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408( n)( 4) of 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.

VerDate jul< 14> 2003 11: 32 Sep 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24SER1. SGM 24SER1 55269 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 2003 / Rules and Regulations VIII. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U. S. C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the Agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U. S. Senate, the U. S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal Register. This final rule is not a `` major rule'' as defined by 5 U. S. C. 804( 2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: September 10, 2003. Debra Edwards, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

 Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 is amended as follows:

PART 180   [ AMENDED]

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

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

 2. Section 180.414 is amended as follows:

 a. By revising the commodities cattle, goat, hog, horse, and sheep meat byproducts in the table in paragraph ( a).

 b. By revising the commodities onion, dry bulb and onion, green in the table in paragraph ( a).

 c. By alphabetically adding commodities in the table in paragraph ( a).

 d. By removing and reserving paragraph ( c).

§ 180.414 Cyromazine; tolerances for residues.

( a) * * *

Commodity Parts per million * * * * *

Broccoli ..................................... 1.0 Cabbage, abyssinian ................ 10.0 Cabbage, seakale ..................... 10.0 * * * * *

Cattle, kidney ............................ 0.2 Commodity Parts per million * * * * *

Cattle, meat byproducts, except kidney .................................... 0.05 * * * * *

Garlic, bulb ............................... 0.2 Garlic, great headed, bulb ........ 0.2 * * * * *

Goat, kidney ............................. 0.2 * * * * *

Goat, meat byproducts, except kidney .................................... 0.05 Hanover salad, leaves .............. 10.0 * * * * *

Hog, kidney ............................... 0.2 * * * * *

Hog, meat byproducts, except kidney .................................... 0.05 * * * * *

Horse, kidney ............................ 0.2 * * * * *

Horse, meat byproducts, except kidney .................................... 0.05 * * * * *

Leek .......................................... 3.0 * * * * *

Onion, dry bulb ......................... 0.2 Onion, green ............................. 3.0 Onion, potato ............................ 3.0 Onion, tree ................................ 3.0 Onion, welsh ............................. 3.0 * * * * *

Rakkyo, bulb ............................. 0.2 Shallot, bulb .............................. 0.2 Shallot, fresh leaves ................. 3.0 * * * * *

Sheep, kidney ........................... 0.2 * * * * *

Sheep, meat byproducts, except kidney ............................ 0.05 * * * * *

Turnip, greens .......................... 10.0 Vegetable, brassica, leafy, group 5, except broccoli ....... 10.0 * * * * *

* * * * * ( c) Tolerances with regional registrations. [ Reserved] * * * * *

[ FR Doc. 03   24012 Filed 9   23   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [ OPP   2003   0270; FRL   7324   5]

Sulfentrazone; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for combined residues of the herbicide sulfentrazone and its metabolites in or on asparagus; bean, lima, succulent; cabbage; corn, field, forage; corn, field, grain; corn, field, stover; horseradish, roots; pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C; peanut; peanut, meal; peppermint, tops; potato; spearmint, tops; sugarcane, cane; sugarcane, molasses; and sunflower, seed. EPA is also deleting certain sulfentrazone tolerances that are no longer needed as result of this action. The Interregional Research Project Number 4 and FMC Corporation requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 ( FQPA). DATES: This regulation is effective September 24, 2003. Objections and requests for hearings, identified by docket ID number OPP   2003   0270, must be received on or before November 24, 2003. ADDRESSES: Written objections and hearing requests may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit VI. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hoyt Jamerson, Registration Division ( 7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 308   9368; e mail address: jamerson. hoyt@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

You may be affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:   Crop production ( NAICS 111)   Animal production ( NAICS 112)   Food manufacturing ( NAICS 311)   Pesticide manufacturing ( NAICS 32532)

VerDate jul< 14> 2003 11: 32 Sep 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24SER1. SGM 24SER1


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 214 (Friday, November 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 68352]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27960]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER11-1893-000]

Salmon Falls Wind Park, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

October 28, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Salmon Falls Wind Park, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is November 18, 2010.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-27960 Filed 11-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P