[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 96 (Friday, May 17, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29041-29049]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11824]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0889; FRL-9371-4]

Sulfoxaflor; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
sulfoxaflor in or on multiple commodities which are identified and
discussed later in this document. DOW AgroSciences LLC requested these
tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective May 17, 2013. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before July 16, 2013, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0889, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-
5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Urbanski, Registration
Division, 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. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, 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-2010-0889 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
July 16, 2013. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0889, 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.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of July 25, 2012 (77 FR 43562) (FRL-9353-
6), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
0F7777) by DOW AgroSciences LLC, 9330 Zionsville Road, Indianapolis,
IN, 46268. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by
establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide sulfoxaflor, or
1-(6-trifluoromethylpyridin-3-yl)ethyl](methyl)-oxido-[lambda]4-
sulfanylidenecyanamide, in or on Crop group 1, subgroup 1A, 1B, Root
Vegetables at 0.05 ppm (from carrot, roots at 0.05 ppm; beet, sugar,
roots at 0.03 ppm; radish, roots at 0.03 ppm); carrot, juice at 0.15
ppm; beet, sugar, raw sugar at 0.04 ppm; beet, sugar, molasses at 0.3
ppm; beet, sugar, thick juice at 0.15 ppm; beet, sugar, dried pulp at
0.07 ppm; subgroup 1C, 1D, Tuberous and Corm Vegetables at 0.01 ppm;
potato at 0.01 ppm; potato, wet peel at 0.02 ppm; potato, chips at 0.02
ppm; potato, dried at 0.02 ppm; potato, granules/flakes at 0.02 ppm;
Crop group 2 Leaves of Root and Tuber Vegetables at 4 ppm (from carrot,
tops at 4 ppm; beet, sugar, tops at 3 ppm; radish, tops at 0.7 ppm);
Crop group 3, subgroup 3-07A Bulb vegetables, Onion, bulb, subgroup at
0.01 ppm (from onion, dry bulb at 0.01 ppm); subgroup 3-07B Bulb
Vegetables, Onion, green, subgroup at 0.6 ppm (from onion, green at 0.6
ppm); Crop group 4, subgroup 4A Leafy Vegetables (except Brassica),
Leafy greens, subgroup at 5 ppm (from leafy greens at 1.6 ppm);
subgroup 4B Leafy Vegetables (except Brassica), Leafy petioles,
subgroup at 1 ppm; (from celery at 1 ppm); Crop group 5, subgroup 5A
Brassica Leafy Vegetables, head and stem (except cauliflower) at 1 ppm
(from cauliflower at 0.08 ppm; broccoli at 0.45 ppm; cabbage at 1 ppm);
subgroup 5B Brassica Leafy Vegetables (from mustard greens at 1.6 ppm);
green bean, snap, succulent at 0.7 ppm; beans, dry at 0.25 ppm; Crop
group 8 Fruiting Vegetables (except cucurbits, plus okra) at 1.2 ppm
(from tomato at 0.45 ppm; pepper, bell and non-bell at 1.2 ppm);
tomato, puree at 0.7 ppm; tomato, paste at 1.6 ppm; tomato, catsup at
0.8 ppm; Crop group 9 Cucurbit Vegetables (except squash) at 0.3 ppm
(from cucumber at 0.3 ppm; melon at 0.3 ppm); squash at 0.03 ppm; Crop
group 10 Citrus Fruits at 0.6 ppm (from orange at 0.6 ppm; lemon at
0.45 ppm; grapefruit at 0.25 ppm); citrus, peel at 1 ppm; citrus, dried
pulp, at 0.9 ppm; Crop group 11 Pome Fruits at 0.4 ppm (from apple at
0.3 ppm; pear at 0.4 ppm); apple, dried pomace at 1.3 ppm; Crop Group
12 Stone Fruits (except cherry) at 0.6 ppm (from nectarine, pitted
fruit at 0.3 ppm; peach, pitted fruit at 0.6 ppm; plum, pitted fruit at
0.25 ppm); cherry, pitted fruit at 2.5 ppm; cherry, dried cherry at 15
ppm; Crop group 13, subgroup 13-07F Small Fruit Vine Climbing subgroup
(except fuzzy kiwifruit) at 1.3 ppm (from grape at 1.3 ppm); grape,
raisins at 5 ppm; subgroup 13-07G Low Growing Berry subgroup at 0.6 ppm
(from strawberry, fruit at 0.6 ppm); Crop group 14 Tree Nuts (plus
pistachio) at 0.02 ppm (from almond at 0.02 ppm; pistachio at 0.02 ppm;
pecan at 0.01 ppm); almond, hulls at 4 ppm; Crop group 20, subgroup 20-
A Rapeseed subgroup at 0.25 ppm (from canola, seeds at 0.25 ppm);
canola, meal at 0.5 ppm; subgroup 20C Cottonseed subgroup at 0.2 ppm
(from cotton, seed at 0.2 ppm); cotton, hulls at 0.4 ppm; cotton, gin
byproducts at 8 ppm; cotton, aspirated grain fractions at 4.6 ppm;
wheat, grain at 0.07 ppm; wheat, forage at 0.8 ppm; wheat, hay at 1.1
ppm; wheat, straw at 2 ppm; barley, grain at 0.15 ppm; barley hay at
0.8 ppm; barley straw at 1.5 ppm; barley malt sprouts at 0.2 ppm;
soybean, seed at 0.2 ppm; soybean hay at 1.8 ppm; soybean, forage at
1.9 ppm; soybean hulls at 0.3 ppm; soybean, meal, toasted at 0.3 ppm;
soybean, aspirated grain fractions at 18

ppm. Tolerances of unchanged parent, XDE-208 are also proposed for milk
at 0.08 ppm; fat of cattle, goat, horse and sheep at 0.04 ppm; kidney
of cattle, goat, horse and sheep at 0.2 ppm; meat of cattle, goat,
horse and sheep at 0.1 ppm; meat byproducts of cattle, goat, horse and
sheep at 0.25 ppm; fat and meat of hog at 0.01 ppm; meat byproducts of
hog at 0.04 ppm; egg at 0.01 ppm; fat and meat of poultry at 0.01 ppm;
meat byproduct of poultry at 0.03 ppm. That document referenced a
summary of the petition prepared by DOW AgroSciences LLC, the
registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. Comments were received on the notice of filing.
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 proposed tolerances of almond, hulls to 6.0 ppm; barley,
grain to 0.4 ppm; barley, hay to 1.0 ppm; barley, straw to 2.0 ppm;
beet, sugar, molasses to 0.25 ppm; berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G
to 0.7 ppm; citrus, dried pulp to 3.60 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10-10
to 0.7 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11-10 to 0.5 ppm; fruit, small, vine
climbing, subgroup 13-07F, except fuzzy kiwi fruit to 2.0 ppm; fruit,
stone, group 12 to 3.0 ppm; grape, raisin to 6.0 ppm; leafy greens,
subgroup 4A to 6.0 ppm; leafy petiole, subgroup 4B to 2.0 ppm; onion,
green, subgroup 3-07B to 0.7 ppm; tomato, paste 2.6 ppm; tomato, puree
to 1.2 ppm; vegetable, brassica, leafy, group 5, except cauliflower to
2.0 ppm; vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 to 0.4 ppm; vegetable, root and
tuber, group 1 to 0.05 ppm; wheat, grain to 0.08 ppm; wheat, forage to
1.0 ppm; wheat, hay to 1.5 ppm; cattle, meat to 0.15 ppm; cattle, fat
to 0.1 ppm; cattle, meat byproducts to 0.4 ppm; milk to 0.15 ppm; goat,
meat to 0.15 ppm; goat, fat to 0.1 ppm; goat, meat byproducts to 0.4
ppm; horse, meat to 0.15 ppm; horse, fat to 0.1 ppm; horse, meat
byproducts to 0.4 ppm; sheep, meat to 0.15 ppm; sheep, fat to 0.1 ppm;
and sheep, meat byproducts to 0.4 ppm. EPA has decreased the proposed
tolerances of bean, dry seed to 0.2 ppm; bean, succulent to 4.0 ppm;
cotton, hulls to 0.35 ppm; cotton, gin byproducts to 6.0 ppm; nuts,
tree, group 14 to 0.015 ppm; pistachio to 0.015 ppm; vegetable,
fruiting, group 10 to 0.7 ppm; vegetable, leaves of root and tuber,
group 2 to 3.0 ppm; hog, meat byproducts to 0.1 ppm; and poultry, meat
byproducts to 0.1 ppm. EPA has added the following tolerances: beet,
sugar, dried pulp at 0.07 ppm; grain, aspirated fractions at 20.0 ppm;
vegetable, legume, foliage, group 7 at 3.0 ppm; and watercress at 6.0
ppm. EPA has not established a tolerance for an individual commodity if
that commodity is included in a crop group tolerance. The reasons for
these changes are explained in Unit IV.D.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Consistent with 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 sulfoxaflor including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with sulfoxaflor follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    Sulfoxaflor is the first member of a new class of insecticides, the
sulfoximines, and is a highly efficacious activator of the nicotinic
acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) in insects. Toxicity and mechanistic
studies in rats, rabbits, dogs and mice indicate that sulfoxaflor is an
activator of the mammalian nAChR as well, but to a much lesser degree
and in a species-specific manner. The database of guideline toxicity
studies indicates that the nervous system and liver are the target
organ systems, resulting in developmental toxicity, hepatotoxicity, and
other apical effects.
    Developmental/offspring toxicity, manifested as skeletal
abnormalities and neonatal deaths, was observed in rats only. The
skeletal abnormalities, including forelimb flexure, bent clavicles, and
hindlimb rotation, likely resulted from skeletal muscle contraction due
to activation of the skeletal muscle nAChR in utero. Contraction of the
diaphragm, also related to skeletal muscle nAChR activation, prevented
normal breathing in neonates and resulted in increased mortality in the
reproduction studies. Furthermore, targeted studies indicate that
offspring effects are dependent upon in utero exposure to sulfoxaflor.
The skeletal abnormalities were observed at high doses in the
developmental and reproduction studies while decreased neonatal
survival was observed at slightly lower levels (e.g., mid- and high-
dose animals).
    Exposure to sulfoxaflor and its major metabolites resulted in
hepatotoxicity in several guideline studies. For example, sulfoxaflor
caused liver weight and enzyme changes, hypertrophy, proliferation, and
tumors in subchronic and chronic studies. Short-term studies with
metabolites resulted in similar liver effects. For sulfoxaflor,
hepatoxicity occurred at lower doses in long-term studies compared to
short-term studies.
    In addition to the developmental and hepatic effects, treatment
with sulfoxaflor resulted in decreased food consumption and body weight
as well as changes in the male reproductive system. Decreased body
weight, body weight changes, and food consumption were observed during
the first few days of several oral studies at the mid- and high-dose
levels. As a result of decreased feeding early in the studies, body
weights were typically lower in the mid- and high-dose groups compared
to the controls, although the differences were not generally
statistically significant. Decreased palatability is a likely
contributor to this effect as body weight decreases were often observed
at study initiation but were comparable to control animals within
several weeks.
    Effects in the male reproductive organs were observed in the
chronic/carcinogenicity study in rats that included increased
testicular and epididymal weights, atrophy of seminiferous tubules, and
decreased

secretory material in the coagulating glands, prostate, and seminal
vesicles. Additionally, there was an increased incidence of
interstitial cell (Leydig cell) tumors. The Leydig cell tumors observed
after exposure to sulfoxaflor are not considered treatment related due
to the lack of dose response, the lack of statistical significance for
the combined tumors (unilateral and bilateral), and the high background
rates for this tumor type in F344 rats. The primary effects on male
reproductive organs are considered secondary to the loss of normal
testicular function due to the size of the interstitial cell (Leydig
Cell) adenomas. Consequently, the secondary effects to the male
reproductive organs are also not considered treatment related.
    Clinical indications of neurotoxicity were only observed at high
doses in the acute neurotoxicity study in rats. At the highest dose
tested, muscle tremors and twitches, convulsions, hindlimb splaying,
increased lacrimation and salivation, decreased pupil size and response
to touch, gait abnormalities and decreased rectal temperature were
observed. Decreased motor activity was also observed in the mid- and
high-dose groups. Since the neurotoxicity was observed only at a very
high dose and many of the effects are not consistent with the
perturbation of the nicotinic receptor system (e.g., salivation,
lacrimation, and pupil response), it is unlikely that these effects are
due to activation of the nAChR.
    Finally, tumors were observed in chronic rat and mouse studies. In
rats, significant increases in the incidence of hepatocellular adenomas
and combined adenomas and/or carcinomas in the high-dose males were
observed when compared to controls. In mice, there were significant
increases in hepatocellular adenomas, carcinomas, and combined adenomas
and/or carcinomas in high dose males when compared to controls. In
female mice, there was an increase in the incidences of carcinomas at
the high dose. Although this increase did not reach statistical
significance, the incidences exceeded the historical control range for
this tumor type was corroborated with the presence of non-neoplastic
lesions at this dose. EPA determined that the liver tumors in mice were
treatment-related. Using data from several mechanistic studies, EPA
also determined that the liver effects in mice and rats are non-linear
(threshold) in their mode of action (MoA) and the MoA for the liver
tumors is consistent with a constitutive androstane receptor (CAR)
mediated, mitogenic mode-of-action. Leydig cell tumors were also
observed in the high-dose group of male rates, but it was determined
that the tumors were not related to treatment. There was also a
significant increase in the incidence of preputial gland tumors in male
rats in the high-dose group. Marginal increases were also observed in
the low- and mid-dose groups; however, the incident values for these
groups were within the range of historical control values. Given that
the liver tumors are produced by a non-linear mechanism, the Leydig
cell tumors were not treatment-related, and the preputial gland tumors
only occurred at the high dose in one sex of one species, EPA concluded
that the evidence of potential carcinogenicity was weak and that that
quantification of risk using a non-linear approach (i.e., reference
dose (RfD) will adequately account for all chronic toxicity, including
any potential carcinogenic effects, that could result from exposure to
sulfoxaflor. The current NOAEL of 5.13 mg/kg/day used for chronic
dietary risk assessment is significantly (4x) lower than the dose where
tumors were observed >= 21.3 mg/kg/day.
    In addition, EPA determined there was sufficient evidence to
support a developmental mode-of-action (i.e., activation of the nAChR)
accounting for the skeletal abnormalities and increased mortality
observed in the rat. Furthermore, there was sufficient evidence to
support that rats are uniquely sensitive to these developmental
effects, informing interspecies uncertainty. Although the database
indicates that the developmental effects are unlikely to be relevant to
humans, the effects will be considered as relevant to humans unless
additional information to the contrary is provided. Data are sufficient
to support reducing the interspecies uncertainty factor to 3X for the
developmental effects.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by sulfoxaflor as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document ``Sulfoxaflor--New Active Ingredient
Human Health Risk Assessment of Uses on Numerous Crops'' at pages 14-31
in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0889.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm. A summary of the toxicological
endpoints for sulfoxaflor used for human risk assessment is shown in
Table 1 of this unit.

  Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Sulfoxaflor for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Point of departure
        Exposure/scenario            and uncertainty/     RfD, PAD, LOC for     Study and toxicological effects
                                      safety factors       Risk assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (Females 13-50       NOAEL = 1.8 mg/kg/    Acute RfD = 0.06 mg/ Developmental Neurotoxicity Study
 years of age).                     day.                  kg/day.              LOAEL = 7.1 mg/kg/day based on
                                   UFA = 3x............  aPAD = 0.06 mg/kg/    decreased neonatal survival (PND
                                   UFH = 10x...........   day.                 0-4).
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........
Acute dietary (General population  NOAEL = 25 mg/kg/day  Acute RfD = 0.25 mg/ Acute Neurotoxicity Study LOAEL =
 including infants and children).  UFA = 10x...........   kg/day.              75 mg/kg/day based on decreased
                                   UFH = 10x...........  aPAD = 0.25 mg/kg/    motor activity.
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........   day.
Chronic dietary (All populations)  NOAEL= 5.13 mg/kg/    Chronic RfD = 0.05   Chronic/Carcinogenicity Study- Rat
                                    day.                  mg/kg/day.           LOAEL = 21.3 mg/kg/day based on
                                   UFA = 10x...........  cPAD = 0.05 mg/kg/    liver effects including increase
                                   UFH = 10x...........   day.                 blood cholesterol, liver weight,
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........                        hypertrophy, fatty change, single
                                                                               cell necrosis and macrophages.
Dermal short-term (1 to 30 days)   Dermal (or oral)      LOC for MOE = 30...  Developmental Neurotoxicity Study
 and intermediate-term (1 to 6      study NOAEL = 1.8                          LOAEL = 7.1 mg/kg/day based on
 months).                           mg/kg/day (dermal                          decreased neonatal survival (PND
                                    absorption rate =                          0-4).
                                    2.4%.
                                   UFA = 3x............
                                   UFH = 10x...........
Inhalation short-term (1 to 30     Inhalation (or oral)  LOC for MOE = 30...  Developmental Neurotoxicity Study
 days) and intermediate-term (1     study NOAEL= 1.8 mg/                       LOAEL = 7.1 mg/kg/day based on
 to 6 months).                      kg/day (inhalation                         decreased neonatal survival (PND
                                    absorption rate =                          0-4).
                                    100%).
                                   UFA = 3x............
                                   UFH = 10x...........
                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation)  Quantification of risk using a non-linear approach (i.e. reference dose (RfD)
                                    will adequately account for all chronic toxicity, including carcinogenicity,
                                                   that could result from exposure to sulfoxaflor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level
  of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-
  level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor.
  UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among
  members of the human population (intraspecies).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to sulfoxaflor, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances. EPA assessed dietary exposures from sulfoxaflor 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. Such effects were identified
for sulfoxaflor. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food
consumption information from the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of
Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA
used maximum residue values from field trials rather than tolerance-
level residue estimates. For crop groups, the residue values were
translated from representative crops to the other crops in the group.
For processed commodities, empirical processing factors were used for
all commodities unless an empirical factor was not available, in which
case the DEEM default estimate was used. Residue estimates for
livestock were derived using maximum observed residues in the cattle
and hen feeding studies. EPA has assumed 100% of crops covered by the
registration request are treated with sulfoxaflor.
    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 has made the same
refinements as those described for the acute exposure assessment, with
two exceptions: (1) Average residue levels from crop field trials were
used rather than maximum values and (2) average residues from feeding
studies, rather than maximum values, were used to derive residue
estimates for livestock commodities. EPA has assumed 100% of crops
covered by the registration request are treated with sulfoxaflor.
    iii. Cancer. EPA determines whether quantitative cancer exposure
and risk assessments are appropriate for a food-use pesticide based on
the weight of the evidence from cancer studies and other relevant data.
Cancer risk is quantified using a linear or nonlinear approach. If
sufficient information on the carcinogenic mode of action is available,
a threshold or nonlinear approach is used and a cancer RfD is
calculated based on an earlier noncancer key event. If carcinogenic
mode of action data is not available, or if the mode of action data
determines a mutagenic mode of action, a default linear cancer slope
factor approach is utilized. Based on the data summarized in Unit
III.A., EPA has concluded that a nonlinear RfD approach is appropriate
for assessing cancer risk to sulfoxaflor. Cancer risk

was assessed using the same exposure estimates as discussed in Unit
III.C.1.ii., chronic exposure.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use PCT information in the dietary assessment for
sulfoxaflor. One hundred percent CT was assumed for all food
commodities. Maximum residue levels from field trials were used for the
acute exposure assessment while average residue levels from field
trials were used for the chronic exposure assessment. Section
408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and
information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in
food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been
measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require
pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after
the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect,
demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels
anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins
as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under
FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later
than 5 years from the date of issuance of these tolerances.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for sulfoxaflor in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of sulfoxaflor. 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.
    Two scenarios were modeled, use of sulfoxaflor on non-aquatic row
and orchard crops and use of sulfoxaflor on watercress. For the non-
aquatic crop scenario, based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure
Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Screening Concentration in
Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the estimated drinking water
concentrations (EDWCs) of sulfoxaflor for acute exposures are estimated
to be 26.4 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 69.2 ppb for
ground water. For chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments, EDWCs
are estimated to be 13.5 ppb for surface water and 69.2 ppb for ground
water. For chronic exposures for cancer assessments, EDWCs are
estimated to be 9.3 ppb for surface water and 69.2 ppb for ground
water.
    For the watercress scenario, based on the Tier I Rice Model, the
estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of sulfoxaflor for
surface water are estimated to be 91.3 parts per billion (ppb) after
one application, 182.5 parts per billion (ppb) after two applications,
and 273.8 parts per billion (ppb) after three applications. The 2007
census of agriculture estimates that approximately 680 acres of the
U.S. are used for watercress production; thus, this use represents a
very small fraction of the potential crop acreage that may be treated
with sulfoxaflor. Moreover, the inputs to the Tier 1 rice model are
quite conservative, especially with regard to application efficiency
(the model assumes that there is no interception of the applied
material by the watercress plants) and the 10-cm water column at the
time of application (information from watercress growers indicates that
watercress fields are drained prior to pesticide applications).
Finally, the rice model predicts pesticide concentrations in water in
the field and not drinking water per se where concentrations are
expected to be lower due to dissipation processes such as degradation,
stream flow, and dilution. While the use on watercress may
theoretically impact drinking water for a few individuals, EPA does not
believe that the EDWCs and residue profiles associated with the
watercress use give a representative depiction of the potential
exposure profile for any major identifiable subgroup of consumers
within the U.S.
    EPA has assessed dietary exposure using the EDWCs from both the
non-aquatic uses and the watercress use. Dietary risk estimates using
both sets of EDWCs are below the Agency's level of concern. For risk
characterization purposes, EPA is focusing on the non-aquatic-crop
EDWCs because they are more representative of the expected exposure
profile for the majority of the population. Furthermore, EPA adjusted
the water concentration values to take into account the source of the
water (surface water vs. groundwater); the relative amounts of parent
sulfoxaflor, X11719474, and X11519540; and the relative liver toxicity
of the metabolites as compared to the parent compound (0.3X and 10X for
X11719474 and X11519540, respectively). A full discussion of the
approach used by EPA is available in Volume 77, No. 189 of the Federal
Register (77 FR 59561, September 28, 2012). In summary, the three
adjusted EDWCs are as follows:
    For acute dietary risk assessment of the general population, the
groundwater EDWC is greater than the surface water EDWC and was used in
the assessment. The residue profile in groundwater is 60.9 ppb
X11719474 and 8.3 ppb X11519540 (totaling 69.2 ppb). Parent sulfoxaflor
is not expected to occur in groundwater. For this assessment, the
regulatory toxicological endpoint is based on neurotoxicity. There is
no information to relate the neurotoxicity of the metabolites to that
of sulfoxaflor; therefore, no toxicity adjustment was made to the EDWC.
    For acute dietary risk assessment of females 13-49, the regulatory
endpoint is attributable only to the parent compound (as previously
discussed); therefore, the surface water EDWC is the most appropriate
EDWC for this assessment even though it is of a lower value than the
groundwater EDWC, which reflects metabolites only. The EDWC of 9.4 ppb
was used and no toxicological adjustment was made.
    For chronic dietary risk assessment, the toxicological endpoint is
liver effects, for which it is possible to account for the relative
toxicities of X11719474 and X11519540 as compared to sulfoxaflor. The
groundwater EDWC is greater than the surface water EDWC. The residue
profile in groundwater consists of 60.9 ppb X11719474 and 8.3 ppb
X11519540. Adjusting for the relative toxicity results in 18.3 ppb
equivalents of X11719474 and 83 ppb X11519540 (totaling 101.3 ppb). The
adjusted groundwater EDCW is greater than the surface water EDWC (9.3
ppb) and was, therefore, used to assess the chronic dietary exposure
scenario.
    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). Sulfoxaflor is not
registered for any specific use patterns that would result in
residential exposure.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.'' EPA has not found
sulfoxaflor to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other
substances, and sulfoxaflor does not appear to produce a toxic
metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that sulfoxaflor does not
have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For
information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a
common mechanism

of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals,
see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

 D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. Although there was
quantitative susceptibility observed in the developmental neurotoxicity
(DNT) study, there is no residual uncertainty because the effects are
well characterized, a clear NOAEL was identified, and the endpoints
chosen for risk assessment are protective of potential in utero and
developmental effects. Quantitative susceptibility in the DNT was based
on an increased rate of neonatal deaths at a dose where no maternal
toxicity was observed. However, the apparent enhanced sensitivity may
be due to the limited number of evaluations conducted in dams in the
study rather than a true sensitivity of the young. Qualitative
susceptibility was observed in the 2-generation reproduction study
since neonatal deaths were observed at the same dose that resulted in
hepatotoxicity in parental animals. However, these effects occurred at
a higher dose compared to the offspring effects observed in the DNT.
Finally, there was no evidence of quantitative or qualitative
susceptibility in the developmental studies in the rat or rabbit.
    As described in Section A. Toxicological Profile, the Agency
considers the rat to be uniquely sensitive to these developmental
effects. There is sufficient evidence indicating that neonatal death in
rats occurs as a result of sulfoxaflor binding to the fetal receptor.
Sulfoxaflor does not bind the human fetal receptor in similar manner,
precluding developmental effects in humans by this mechanism of
toxicity.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for sulfoxaflor is complete.
    ii. The level of concern for neurotoxicity is low because the
effects are well characterized, the dose-response curve for these
effects is well characterized, and clear NOAELs have been identified.
    iii. Although there is evidence of quantitative susceptibility in
the DNT study, based on decreased survival of offspring up to postnatal
day 4, the endpoints and doses selected for risk assessment are
protective for these effects; further, EPA's degree of concern for
human susceptibility is reduced based on the special studies submitted
in support of the mode of action.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100% CT and either maximum or average residue levels from field
trials. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground
and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to sulfoxaflor in
drinking water. Although some refinements were used in the exposure
assessment, the dietary and drinking water assessments will still
result in the upper-bound estimates of exposure (see Unit III.C.2).

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to sulfoxaflor will occupy 16% of the aPAD for children 1-2 years old
and females 13-49 years old, the population groups receiving the
greatest exposure.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
sulfoxaflor from food and water will utilize 18% of the cPAD for
infants, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. There
are no residential uses for sulfoxaflor.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level). A short-term
adverse effect was identified; however, sulfoxaflor is not registered
for any use patterns that would result in short-term residential
exposure. Short-term risk is assessed based on short-term residential
exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no short-term
residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been
assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as
protective as the POD used to assess short-term risk), no further
assessment of short-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the
chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating short-term risk for
sulfoxaflor.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level). An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however,
sulfoxaflor is not registered for any use patterns that would result in
intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term risk is
assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term residential
exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under
the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as
the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no further assessment
of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic
dietary risk assessment for evaluating intermediate-term risk for
sulfoxaflor.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. As described in Unit
III.A, EPA has concluded that assessments using a non-linear approach
(e.g., a chronic RfD-based assessment) will adequately account for all
chronic toxicity, including carcinogenicity that could result from
exposure to sulfoxaflor. Chronic dietary risk estimates are below EPA's
level of concern; therefore, cancer risk is also below EPA's level of
concern.
    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 sulfoxaflor residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology is available to enforce the
tolerance expression. High performance liquid chromatographic (HPLC)
methods with positive-ion electro spray (ESI) tandem mass spectrometry
(LC/MS/MS) were developed for data collection and enforcement of
sulfoxaflor residues and the two metabolites X11719474 and X11721061.
Method 091116 was developed for plant commodities, and Method 091188
was developed for livestock commodities. FDA multiresidue methods are
not suitable for analysis of sulfoxaflor; however, data were provided
which indicate that the DFG S-19 multiresidue method may provide
satisfactory results. The analytical enforcement methodology 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 not
established any MRLs for sulfoxaflor.

C. Response to Comments

    Two comments were received by email on the notice of filing. One
commenter asked for clarification on the proposed tolerance for
Subgroup 5B Brassica Leafy Vegetables. EPA contacted the registrant and
confirmed that the proposed tolerance for this subgroup is 1.6 ppm. The
second commenter asked for clarification on the proposed tolerances for
Crop Group 1, specifically questioning the discrepancy in proposed
tolerances between radish roots and carrot and beets, sugar roots. EPA
responded that the tolerances listed in the company's notice of filing
are only proposed and not necessarily what the Agency will grant. To
cover these commodities, EPA is granting a single tolerance of 0.05 ppm
for vegetable, root and tuber, group 1. The comments and EPA responses
can be found in the docket.

D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    Many of the tolerance levels proposed by the registrant are
different from those being established by the EPA. The reason for these
differences is that the registrant determined the proposed tolerances
using the North American Free-Trade Agreement tolerance calculator
rather than using the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) calculation procedures. In order to maximize global
regulatory harmonization, it became EPA policy in April 2011, which was
after receipt of the sulfoxaflor submission, to use the OECD
calculation procedures to derive tolerance levels. In addition, the
registrant proposed tolerances for some crops as both an individual
crop and as members of a crop group. EPA has not established a
tolerance for an individual commodity if that commodity is included in
a crop group tolerance. EPA is not establishing tolerances for cattle,
sheep, goat, and horse kidney as proposed, as kidneys are covered under
the requested meat byproducts tolerances. Nor is EPA establishing a
tolerance for residues in plum, prune, dried as residue levels is
adequately addressed by the tolerance listing for the stone fruit crop
group raw agricultural commodity. EPA is establishing four tolerances
which were not proposed by the petitioner:
    Beet, sugar, dried pulp at 0.07 ppm due to the potential for
concentration of residues upon production of the dried pulp commodity.
The petitioner's evaluation indicates that it did not think a separate
tolerance would be necessary but EPA's analysis of the data shows
otherwise;
    Grain, aspirated fractions at 20 ppm to cover residues in this feed
item. The tolerance is necessary to support uses on barley and wheat
but a tolerance was not requested, apparently an oversight by the
petitioner;
    Watercress at 6.0 ppm. The petitioner requested this use but did
not provide a requested tolerance level; and
    Crop Group 7 (Vegetables, legume, foliage) at 7.0 ppm. The
tolerance is necessary to support uses on Crop Group 6 (legume
vegetables) but the petitioner only requested tolerances for several
individual commodities in Crop Group 7, apparently as an oversight. See
Unit II. for specific revisions.

 V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of sulfoxaflor,
1-(6-trifluoromethylpyridin-3-yl)ethyl](methyl)-oxido-[lambda]\6\-
sulfanylidenecyanamide, as indicated in Unit II.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d)
in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has
been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final 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) 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 FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This 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 FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between

the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: May 6, 2012.
Steven Bradbury,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Section 180.670 is added to subpart C to read as follows:

Sec.  180.670  Sulfoxaflor; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of the
insecticide sulfoxaflor, including its metabolites and degradate, in or
on the commodities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance
levels specified below is to be determined by measuring only
sulfoxaflor (N-[methyloxido[1-[6-(trifluoromethyl)-3-pyridinyl]ethyl]-
[gamma]\4\-sulfanylidene]cyanamide).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almond, hulls..............................................          6.0
Barley, grain..............................................         0.40
Barley, hay................................................          1.0
Barley, straw..............................................          2.0
Bean, dry seed.............................................         0.20
Bean, succulent............................................          4.0
Beet, sugar, dried pulp....................................         0.07
Beet, sugar, molasses......................................         0.25
Berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G........................         0.70
Cattle, fat................................................         0.10
Cattle, meat...............................................         0.15
Cattle, meat byproducts....................................         0.40
Cauliflower................................................         0.08
Citrus, dried pulp.........................................          3.6
Cotton, gin byproducts.....................................          6.0
Cotton, hulls..............................................         0.35
Cottonseed subgroup 20C....................................         0.20
Fruit, citrus, group 10-10.................................         0.70
Fruit, pome, group 11-10...................................         0.50
Fruit, small, vine climbing, subgroup 13-07F, except fuzzy           2.0
 kiwi fruit................................................
Fruit, stone, group 12.....................................          3.0
Goat, fat..................................................         0.10
Goat, meat.................................................         0.15
Goat, meat byproducts......................................         0.40
Grain, aspirated fractions.................................         20.0
Grape, raisin..............................................          6.0
Hog, fat...................................................         0.01
Hog, meat..................................................         0.01
Hog, meat byproducts.......................................         0.01
Horse, fat.................................................         0.10
Horse, meat................................................         0.15
Horse, meat byproducts.....................................         0.40
Leafy greens, subgroup 4A..................................          6.0
Leafy petiole, subgroup 4B.................................          2.0
Milk.......................................................         0.15
Nuts, tree, group 14.......................................        0.015
Onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A................................         0.01
Onion, green, subgroup 3-07B...............................         0.70
Pistachio..................................................        0.015
Poultry, eggs..............................................         0.01
Poultry, fat...............................................         0.01
Poultry, meat..............................................         0.01
Poultry, meat byproducts...................................         0.01
Rapeseed, meal.............................................         0.50
Rapeseed subgroup 20A......................................         0.40
Sheep, fat.................................................         0.10
Sheep, meat................................................         0.15
Sheep, meat byproducts.....................................         0.40
Soybean, seed..............................................         0.20
Tomato, paste..............................................         2.60
Tomato, puree..............................................         1.20
Vegetable, brassica, leafy, group 5, except cauliflower....          2.0
Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9...............................         0.40
Vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10............................         0.70
Vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, group 2...............          3.0
Vegetable, legume, group 7.................................          3.0
Vegetable, root and tuber, group 1.........................         0.05
Watercress.................................................          6.0
Wheat, forage..............................................          1.0
Wheat, grain...............................................         0.08
Wheat, hay.................................................          1.5
Wheat, straw...............................................          2.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]
    (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. [Reserved]
    (d) Indirect or inadvertent registrations. [Reserved]
[FR Doc. 2013-11824 Filed 5-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 168 (Friday, August 29, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51636-51637]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20416]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2014-63]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to
improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of
FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the
inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to
affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before September 18, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2014-
0598 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jake Troutman,<PHONE_NUMBER>, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20951.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC on August 21, 2014.
James M. Crotty,
Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2014-0598.
    Petitioner: Network Media Services, LLC DBA Applied Drone
Technologies.
    Section of 14 CFR: Parts 21 Subpart H, 45.23(b), 61.113(a) and (b),
91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.103(b), 91.109, 91.119, 91.121, 91.151(a),
91.203(a) and (b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), and 91.417(a)
and (b).
    Description of Relief Sought: The petitioner is seeking an
exemption to commercially operate its fleet of small unmanned aircraft
in motion picture or television operations, to conduct its own research
and to develop economic platforms for law enforcement, first
responders, and search and rescue.

[FR Doc. 2014-20416 Filed 8-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


TABLE OF CONTENTS	PAGE

I.	BACKGROUND	1

II.	SAMPLING DESIGN BASIS	1

A.	Testing Rationale	1

B.	Sampling Design	1

C.	DFS TSCA Testing	2

III.	PCB FEED (DFS TSCA TESTING)	2

IV.	EMISSIONS	3

A.	DFS Exhaust Blower Duct	3

B.	Common Stack	3

C.	LIC Exhaust Blower Duct	4

D.	Ambient Air	4

V.	DESTRUCTION AND REMOVAL EFFICIENCY	4

VI.	EXTRANEOUS SOURCES OF PCBS	4

VII.	CONCLUSIONS	5

LIST OF TABLES	PAGE

1	Sampling Time Intervals	6

2	PCB Emissions Summary at the DFS Exhaust Blower Duct	7

3	Dioxin/Furan Emissions Summary at the DFS Exhaust Blower Duct	9

4	Summary of PCDD/PCDF Emissions at the DFS Exhaust Blower Duct	11

5	Destruction and Removal Efficiency Summary for the DFS Exhaust Blower
Duct	12

6	PCB Emissions Summary at the Common Stack	13

7	Destruction and Removal Efficiency Summary at the Common Stack	15

8	PCB Emissions Summary at the LIC Exhaust Blower Duct	16

9	PCB Ambient Concentration Summary	18

LIST OF APPENDICES

A	ANCDF Test Plan/US EPA Letter

B	PDARS and Rocket Feed Summary

C	Sampling Report

D	Process Sampling Report

E	QA/QC Summary

F	Calibration Package

G	Field Logs and Master Sample Checklist

H	Analytical Data Packages

	H-1	STL Package No. G4C180344 (PCDDs/PCDFs and PCBs in Exhaust Gas)

	H-2	RESERVED (Data Package for Process Samples)

	H-3	RESERVED (Data Package for Wipe Samples)

	H-4	RESERVED (Data Package for Natural Gas Samples)

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

%	percent

ACGIH	American Council of Government Industrial Hygienists

AEHA	Army Environmental Hygiene Agency

ANCDF	Anniston Chemical Agent Disposal Facility

ATB	agent trial burn

ATBP	agent trial burn plan

CAA	Clean Air Act

DFS	Deactivation Furnace System

DRE	destruction and removal efficiency

EPA	Environmental Protection Agency

ft/sec	feet per second

g/s	gram per second

HDC	Heated Discharge Conveyor

lbs/hr	pounds per hour

LIC	Liquid Incinerator

MDB	Munitions Demilitarization Building

mg/m3	milligrams per cubic meter

ND	non-detect

ng/dscm	nanograms per dry standard cubic meter

ng/m3	nanograms per cubic meter

NIST	National Institute of Standards and Technology

O2	oxygen

PAS	Pollution Abatement System

PCB	polychlorinated biphenyl

PCDD	polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin

PCDF	polychlorinated dibenzofuran

PDARS	process data acquisition and recording system

PFS	PAS Filtration System

ppm	parts per million

RCRA	Resources Conservation and Recovery Act

rockets/hr	rockets per hour

STB	surrogate trial burn

TEF	toxic equivalent factor

TEQ	toxic equivalent quotient

TOCDF	Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal Facility

TSCA	Toxic Substances Control Act

US	United States

WHO	World Health Organization

I.	Background

Anniston Chemical Agent Disposal Facility (ANCDF) commenced rocket
processing on August 9, 2003, using the ANCDF Deactivation Furnace
System (DFS) GB Agent Trial Burn (ATB) Plan (ATBP), Revision 3a.  ANCDF
is required to test for the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
under the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA), Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), and Clean Air Act (CAA) Permits.  The shipping and
firing tubes for the M55 rockets contain PCBs.  The amount of PCBs in
the shipping and firing tubes vary depending on agent lot as documented
in the 1986-87 United States (US) Army Environmental Hygiene Agency
(AEHA) Study.  The permit limits are as follows:

Emissions of PCB’s from the DFS shall not exceed 6.45E-07 grams per
second (g/s) (CAA) and a maximum of 0.2 nanograms toxicity equivalent
quotient per dry standard cubic meters (ng TEQ/dscm), adjusted to 7
percent (%) excess oxygen (O2) and

Each test of the ATB shall demonstrate a minimum PCB destruction and
removal efficiency (DRE) of 99.9999% (TSCA).

II.	Sampling Design Basis

Testing Rationale

ANCDF completed preliminary testing for TSCA in November 2003 and
completed the GB ATB in November 2003 on the DFS.  During the November
2003, sampling for PCBs was conducted at two locations:  the DFS exhaust
blower duct and at the common stack.  The testing at the DFS exhaust
blower duct was consistent with all surrogate trial burns (STB);
however, the Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal Facility (TOCDF) reported
that flexible heated transfer lines were a potential source of PCB
contamination.  ANCDF employs flexible heated transfer lines to sample
at the horizontal duct locations.  Though not an ideal location, the
common stack was identified as the only location where sampling could
occur without using a flexible heated transfer line.  The PCBs from the
DFS exhaust blower duct location met the TSCA Permit conditions.  The
common stack results suggest that the low flow conditions at the common
stack created results that are not defensible.  Also, the Liquid
Incinerator (LIC) was on-line processing natural gas only to increase
flow to the common stack.  During the LIC natural gas ATB in November
2003, low levels of PCBs had been detected.  These PCBs on natural gas
could have contributed to higher stack results.  ANCDF asserts that the
point of compliance is at the DFS exhaust blower duct where all TSCA
Permit conditions were met; however, on March 2, 2004, the US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requested that ANCDF undertake
additional testing for PCBs.

B.	Sampling Design

The March 2004 letter from the US EPA requested that ANCDF conduct two
preliminary runs with simultaneous sampling at the LIC exhaust blower
duct when processing natural gas; sampling at the DFS exhaust blower
duct while feeding rockets, and sampling at the common stack.  The
letter went on to specify three runs while sampling at the DFS and the
common stack with the LIC in “bottle up” condition.  In a meeting
with the US EPA on March 12, 2004, the testing regime was changed to
conduct three runs with the LIC in “idle” mode processing natural
gas and sampling at the LIC exhaust blower duct, the DFS processing
rockets while sampling at the DFS exhaust blower duct, and at the common
stack simultaneously.  In addition, ambient air was sampled at the air
intake to the Munitions Demilitarization Building (MDB).  Appendix A
contains the ANCDF Test Plan and the field memorandum where the US EPA,
the Anniston Field Office, and Westinghouse Anniston agreed to the
changes.  The basis for the change is that the common stack flow is too
low to meet the requirements of the US EPA Method 2 when the LIC is in
“bottle up” condition.  The US EPA representative had been to the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) certified
laboratory in Birmingham, AL and discussed the calibration of the pitot
tubes used at ANCDF with the NIST laboratory personnel.  The pitot tubes
are certified to a velocity of 9.6 feet per second (ft/sec); however,
the flow at the common stack, based on the November data, was projected
to be less than 5.0 ft/sec.  The sampling regime was changed and
approved by US EPA to do three runs simultaneously at four locations:
LIC exhaust blower duct, DFS exhaust blower duct, common stack, and
ambient air at the MDB air intake.

C.	DFS TSCA Testing

On March 15, 16, and 17, 2004, ANCDF conducted four TSCA test runs.  A
SW-846 Method 0023A sampling train was used at each of the four
locations.  Run 1 samples were archived and not analyzed, except for the
field blank train.  The test runs were executed at the DFS exhaust
blower duct, LIC exhaust blower duct, and the common stack.  In
addition, an ambient air sample was taken for each run to measure PCB
contribution at the air intake of the MDB, the source for combustion air
for the DFS and LIC.  The sampling train at the common stack was an all
glass train in a vertical stack configuration.  The sampling trains at
the DFS and LIC exhaust blower duct, and ambient locations incorporated
a flexible heated transfer line in a horizontal duct configuration.  In
addition field blanks were taken at the DFS exhaust blower duct for
Run 1, the LIC exhaust blower duct for Run 2, and at the common stack
for Run 3.

Samples of the DFS scrubber brine was taken every 30 minutes during each
of the runs and composited into one sample per run at the on-site
laboratory.  Heated Discharge Conveyor (HDC) ash was sampled for each
run.  The cyclone ash drum did not contain sufficient volume of ash to
sample at the end of the fourth run.  Attempts were made to evacuate the
cyclone, per the procedure, and no ash was deposited in the cyclone
drum.  Thus, no sample of cyclone ash was generated from this test.  The
process sample results are in Appendix H-2.

Sampling times and durations are found in Table 1 by location.

III.	PCB Feed (DFS TSCA Testing)

ANCDF fed an average of 33.0 rockets per hour (rockets/hr) for Run 2,
31.78 rockets/hr for Run 3, and 30.67 rockets/hr for Run 4.  The
concentration of PCBs fed varies depending on the agent lot.  The
rockets fed are recorded on the Certificate of Destruction required by
the Chemical Agent Accountability Procedure.  Appendix B summarizes the
agent lots and the number of rockets from each lot.  Further, rockets
have one of three types of firing tubes:  chopped, matted, and
matted/coated.  The request for rocket feed from Anniston Army Depot was
for rockets that were representative of the worst-case PCB concentration
in the stockpile.  The highest concentration of PCBs is in the
matted/coated shipping and firing tubes.

The PCB concentration associated with chopped and matted shipping and
firing tubes was derived from the 1986-87 AEHA Study.  The average PCB
concentration of matted and chopped tubes based on 2,169 samples was
1,815 parts per million (ppm).  Of these shipping and firing tubes,
2,000 were matted and 169 were chopped.  The 1,815 ppm value includes
multiple entries of 0 ppm when the sample analysis was less than the
detection limit; thus, the 1,815 ppm is biased low.  The PCB
concentration of matted and coated is based on the same study (See
Tables E-2 through E-4 of the 1986-7 AEHA Study) reported mean values
of 15,200, 1,864, and 6,441 ppm yielding an average value of 7,835 ppm.
 The 1986-87 AEHA data represents the official database for PCB use.
ANCDF used the mean of the mean of 6,441 ppm.  US EPA approved the use
of the 6,441ppm concentration in the March 2, 2004 letter (See Appendix
A).  The aggregate feed rate of rockets is in the Process Data
Acquisition and Recording System (PDARS) and the specific PCB
concentration per run is on Tables 5 and 7 (See Appendix B).  The
average concentration of PCBs fed during the March 2004 testing was 2.8
pounds per hour (lbs/hr).

IV.	Emissions

A.	DFS Exhaust Blower Duct

The PCBs that are reported for the DFS exhaust blower duct include the
total homologues and those congeners that are on the World Health
Organization (WHO) list as having toxic equivalency factors (TEFs).  The
total PCB emissions are 1.87E-08, 1.87E-08, and 2.46E-08 g/s for Runs
2, 3, and 4, respectively, and are in compliance with the CAA Permit
limit of 6.45E-07 g/s (See Table 2).  The weighted PCB concentrations
are 0.006, 0.006, and 0.006 ng TEQ/dscm corrected to 7% O2 for Runs 2,
3, and 4, respectively.  Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin (PCDD) and
polychlorinated dibenzofuran emissions (PCDF), shown on Table 3, are
0.008, 0.008, and 0.008 ng TEQ/dscm at 7% oxygen for Runs 2, 3, and 4,
respectively.  The combined PCB and PCDD/F TEQ weighted emissions are
0.014, 0.014, and 0.014 ng TEQ/dscm for Runs 2, 3, and 4,
respectively, and are in compliance with the TSCA Permit limit of 0.2 ng
TEQ/dscm corrected to 7% O2.  Table 4 contains PCDD/PCDF data.  All are
“non-detect” and in compliance with the ANCDF RCRA Permit.  The DRE
was 99.999995, 99.999995, and 99.999993% for Runs 2, 3, and 4,
respectively, as shown on Table 5.  The average DRE at the DFS duct was
99.999994%, and is in compliance with the TSCA approval of 99.9999%.

B.	Common Stack

The PCBs reported for the common stack include the total homologues and
those congeners that are on the WHO list as having TEFs.  The total PCB
emissions are 4.66E-08, 9.27E-08, and 2.48E-08 g/s for Runs 2, 3, and 4,
respectively, and are in compliance with the CAA Permit limit of
6.45E-07 g/s (See Table 6).  The weighted PCB concentrations are 0.006,
0.008, and 0.008 ng TEQ/dscm corrected to 7% O2 for Runs 2, 3, and 4,
respectively, and are in compliance with the TSCA Permit limit of 0.2 ng
TEQ/dscm corrected to 7% O2.  The DRE calculated at the common stack
based on the rocket feed to the DFS was 99.999987, 99.999974, and
99.999993% for Runs 2, 3, and 4, respectively, as shown on Table 7.  The
flow at the common stack was measured by a micromanometer as required by
US EPA Method 2 for low flow sources.  The velocity at the stack
averaged 6.2 ft/sec.  The velocities were 7.05, 5.94, and 5.63 ft/sec
for Runs 2, 3 and 4, respectively.  This flow is below the pitot tube
certification of 9.6 ft/sec at the NIST certified wind tunnel (See
Appendix A).

C.	LIC Exhaust Blower Duct

The PCBs reported for the LIC exhaust blower duct include the total
homologues and those congeners that are on the WHO list as having TEFs.
The total PCB emissions are 1.09E-08, 8.47E-09, and 3.19E-08 g/s for
Runs 2, 3, and 4, respectively, and are in compliance with the CAA
Permit limit of 6.45E-07 g/s (See Table 8).  The weighted PCB
concentrations are 0.005, 0.005, and 0.006 ng TEQ/dscm corrected to 7%
O2 for Runs 2, 3, and 4, respectively, and are in compliance with the
TSCA Permit limit of 0.2 ng TEQ/dscm corrected to 7% O2.  No DRE can
be calculated for the LIC since it was operating on natural gas only
with no agent being fed.

D.	Ambient Air

The PCBs reported for the ambient air samples include the total
homologues and those congeners that are on the WHO list as having TEFs.
The total PCB concentrations are 26, 24, and 37 ng/dscm with an average
concentration of 20 ng/dscm.  The weighted PCB concentrations are
0.005, 0.005, and 0.005 ng/dscm for Runs 2, 3, and 4, respectively.
The results are on Table 9.

V.	Destruction and Removal Efficiency

The ANCDF TSCA approval for an incinerator is 99.9999% DRE.  The
regulation states that DRE is to be determined by dividing the
difference between the total PCBs fed and total PCBs emitted by the
total PCBs fed, all on a lbs/hr basis, and expressing the result as a
percent.  As discussed above, the DRE met the 99.9999% TSCA requirement
at the DFS exhaust blower duct and common stack.

EXTRANEOUS SOURCES OF PCBs

ANCDF has executed a variety of actions to determine if there are
sources external to the combustion process that may contain PCBs.
Samples were taken of the Pollution Abatement System Filtration System
(PFS) prefilters, PFS condensate, chemical products that are used for
water treatment in the Pollution Abatement System (PAS), and wipe
samples around the sampling ports at the LIC, DFS, and common stack.
Results received from the off site laboratory using SW-846 Method 8082
for PCB determination have been non-detect (ND) for the PFS prefilter
and condensate as well as the water treatment chemicals.  Results are
pending for the sample port wipes.

The American Council of Government Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH)
threshold limit value for PCB's with 54% chlorine is 0.25 milligrams
per cubic meter (mg/m3) (or 250,000 nanograms per cubic meter (ng/m3))
for a twelve-hour shift exposure as a time weighted average.  The
results for the MDB ambient air concentration over the four-hour time
period were varied with 0.0000365 mg/m3 (or 36.5 ng/m3) being the
highest.  As a conservative measure, this four-hour sampling period can
be extrapolated to assume that all twelve hours would be at the same
concentration level.  From the comparison, there is no concern for the
health of employees to this ambient level of PCB in the air around the
facility.  It should also be noted that the ambient PCB concentrations
detected at the MDB air intake are within backgound levels recorded by
the US EPA in the surrounding community.

ANCDF conducted an internet literature search for PCBs.  One US EPA
research article cited forest fires as a PCB contributor
(www.elsevier.com/locate/atmosen).  Both Talledega National Forest and
Pelham range were conducting controlled burns in March 2004.  The
ambient air is the source for combustion air for the furnaces.

The US EPA took wipe samples of the natural gas distribution system at
ANCDF.  The natural gas feed line to the boilers that supply hot water
to the facility were sampled.  These boilers have been in
near-continuous operation since December 2000; thus, should be
representative of the highest use of natural gas at ANCDF.

VII.	Conclusions

All TSCA approval requirements were met for the DFS exhaust blower duct
location and common stack.  The data from the common stack does not meet
US EPA Method 2 requirements, as the stack velocity continues to be
below the level that the NIST certified wind tunnel can calibrate.
ANCDF requests that the US EPA grant interim operations consistent with
the rocket rate approved by ADEM, i.e., 50% then 75%.  The submission of
all the laboratory data to US EPA and their approval of the report will
then allow ANCDF to process rockets at 100% of the feed rate.

Table 1:	Sampling Time Intervals

Run	Date	1st Port	2nd Port

Start	Stop	Start	Stop

DFS Exhaust Blower Duct

1(1)	3/15/04	1240	1440	1530	1730

2	3/16/04	0740	0940	0955	1155

3	3/16/04	1502	1702	1712	1912

4	3/17/04	0800	1000	1025	1225

Common Stack

1(1)	3/15/04	1240	1504	1530	1754

2	3/16/04	0740	0940	0955	1155

3	3/16/04	1502	1702	1712	1912

4	3/17/04	0800	1007(2)	1025	1225

LIC Exhaust Blower Duct

1(1)	3/15/04	1240	1440	1530	1730

2	3/16/04	0740	0940	0955	1155

3	3/16/04	1502	1702	1712	1912

4	3/17/04	0800	1000	1025	1225

Ambient Air

1(1)	3/15/04	1240	1500	1530	1750

2	3/16/04	0740	0940	0955	1155

3	3/16/04	1502	1702	1712	1912

4	3/17/04	0800	1000	1025	1225

Footnotes:

Run 1 was conducted as a backup test run for all parameters.  All
samples associated with the run were archived.

Sampling was paused from 0933 to 0941 due to micromanometer adjustments.

Abbreviations:

LIC	Liquid Incinerator

DFS	Deactivation Furnace SystemTable 4:	Summary of PCDD/PCDF Emissions
at the DFS Exhaust Blower Duct

Parameter	Units	Run 2	Run 3	Run 4	Average	RCRA/CAA

Permit Limit

Total 2,3,7,8-TetraCDD	g/s	< 7.42E-12 [ND]	< 7.61E-12 [ND]	< 8.23E-12
[ND]	< 7.75E-12 [ND]	5.54E-11

Total 2,3,7,8-PentaCDD	g/s	< 1.57E-11 [ND]	< 1.47E-11 [ND]	< 1.53E-11
[ND]	< 1.52E-11 [ND]	2.77E-10

Total 2,3,7,8-HexaCDD	g/s	< 3.13E-11 [ND]	< 3.17E-11 [ND]	< 3.19E-11
[ND]	< 3.17E-11 [ND]	7.57E-10

Total 2,3,7,8-HeptaCDD	g/s	< 1.25E-11 [ND]	< 1.17E-11 [ND]	< 1.42E-11
[ND]	< 1.28E-11 [ND]	5.93E-10

Total OctaCDD	g/s	< 1.67E-11 [ND]	< 1.47E-11 [ND]	< 1.56E-11 [ND]	<
1.56E-11 [ND]	1.26E-09

Total 2,3,7,8-TetraCDF	g/s	< 7.60E-12 [ND]	< 6.78E-12 [ND]	< 6.22E-12
[ND]	< 6.87E-12 [ND]	5.54E-11

Total 2,3,7,8-PentaCDF	g/s	< 2.03E-11 [ND]	< 2.14E-11 [ND]	< 2.20E-11
[ND]	< 2.12E-11 [ND]	5.68E-10

Total 2,3,7,8-HexaCDF	g/s	< 3.22E-11 [ND]	< 3.22E-11 [ND]	< 3.26E-11
[ND]	< 3.23E-11 [ND]	1.16E-09

Total 2,3,7,8-HeptaCDF	g/s	< 2.03E-11 [ND]	< 2.12E-11 [ND]	< 1.78E-11
[ND]	< 1.98E-11 [ND]	6.69E-10

Total OctaCDF	g/s	< 1.51E-11 [ND]	< 1.65E-11 [ND]	< 1.69E-11 [ND]	<
1.62E-11 [ND]	5.54E-10

Total CDD/CDF	ng TEQ/dscm @ 7% O2	< 0.008 [ND]	< 0.008 [ND]	< 0.008 [ND]
< 0.008 [ND]	0.20

Abbreviations:

<	less than	@	at

CAA	Clean Air Act	CDD	chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin

CDF	chlorinated dibenzofuran	g/s	grams per second

ND	not detected	ng/dscm	nanograms per dry standard cubic meter

O2	oxygen	PCDD	polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin

PCDF	polychlorinated dibenzofuran	RCRA	Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act

TEQ	toxic equivalent quotient

ANCDF TSCA Sampling and Analysis Report, Revision 0	March 2004

  PAGE  i

  PAGE  6

ANCDF TSCA Sampling and Analysis Report, Revision 0	March 2004

11

ANCDF

Toxic Substances Control Act Sampling and Analysis Report

Revision 0, March 2004

Submitted to:	National Program Chemicals Division

Submitted by:            Chemical Materials Agency

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 222 (Monday, November 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80734-80735]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25583]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2023-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-2387]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard
determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any
Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the
supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities
listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek
general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and
where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and
FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the
community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in
effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before February 20, 2024.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report
for each community are available for inspection at both the online
location https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/prelimdownload and the
respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below.
Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each
community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-2387, to
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance
and

Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,
(202) 646-7659, or (email) [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
[email protected]; or visit the FEMA Mapping and Insurance
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS
report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b)
is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard
determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report
become effective.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other
pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the
SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been
engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days
without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found online at https://www.floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_overview.pdf.
    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables
below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each
community are available for inspection at both the online location
https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/prelimdownload and the respective
Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities
with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be
identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date
listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS
report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

Nicholas A. Shufro,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Coconino County, Arizona and Incorporated Areas
          Project: 19-09--0024S Preliminary Date: July 20, 2023
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unincorporated Areas of Coconino County  Coconino County Community
                                          Development Department, 2500
                                          North Fort Valley Road,
                                          Building 1, Flagstaff, AZ
                                          86001.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              La Paz County, Arizona and Incorporated Areas
          Project: 20-09--0044S Preliminary Date: July 31, 2023
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unincorporated Areas of La Paz County..  La Paz County Community
                                          Development, 1112 Joshua
                                          Avenue, #202, Parker, AZ
                                          85344.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2023-25583 Filed 11-17-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P