[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 122 (Friday, June 24, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37106-37107]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15813]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG11-94-000.
    Applicants: Hatch Solar Energy Center I, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Hatch Solar Energy Center I, LLC.
    Filed Date: 06/17/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110617-5164.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 08, 2011.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER01-1305-018.
    Applicants: Westar Generating, Inc.
    Description: Westar Generating, Inc. Informational Filing.
    Filed Date: 06/17/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110617-5154.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 08, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1501-002; ER09-86-002.
    Applicants: Southwestern Electric Power Company.
    Description: Compliance refund report of Southwestern Electric
Power Company.
    Filed Date: 06/17/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110617-5175.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 08, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1786-002.
    Applicants: Credit Suisse Energy, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Credit
Suisse Energy LLC.
    Filed Date: 06/17/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110617-5153.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 08, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2131-001.
    Applicants: Grand Ridge Energy LLC.
    Description: Triennial Report of Grand Ridge Energy LLC.
    Filed Date: 06/20/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110620-5093.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 19, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2133-001.
    Applicants: Sheldon Energy LLC.
    Description: Triennial Report of Sheldon Energy LLC.
    Filed Date: 06/20/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110620-5116.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 19, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2137-001.
    Applicants: Beech Ridge Energy LLC.
    Description: Triennial Report of Beech Ridge Energy LLC.
    Filed Date: 06/20/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110620-5094.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 19, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2140-001.
    Applicants: Grand Ridge Energy IV LLC.
    Description: Triennial Report of Grand Ridge Energy IV LLC.
    Filed Date: 06/20/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110620-5108.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 19, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2141-001.
    Applicants: Grand Ridge Energy V LLC.
    Description: Triennial Report of Grand Ridge Energy V LLC.
    Filed Date: 06/20/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110620-5106.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 19, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2207-001.
    Applicants: Alta Wind IV, LLC.
    Description: Alta Wind IV, LLC--Notice of Non-Material Change in
Status.
    Filed Date: 06/17/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110617-5177.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 08, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3614-002.
    Applicants: Glacial Energy Holdings.
    Description: Glacial Energy Holdings submits tariff filing per 35:
Substitute Market-based Tariff of Glacial Energy Holdings to be
effective 5/23/2011.
    Filed Date: 06/20/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110620-5000.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 11, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3826-000.
    Applicants: Black Hills/Colorado Electric Utility Company, LP.
    Description: Black Hills/Colorado Electric Utility Company, LP
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(1): Black Hills/Colorado Electric
Utility Company, LP, Updated Rates and Tariff to be effective 8/15/
2011.
    Filed Date: 06/20/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110620-5002.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 11, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3827-000.
    Applicants: Genon Power Midwest, LP.
    Description: GenOn Power Midwest, LP submits notice of cancellation
of the Connection and Site Agreement with American Transmission
Systems, Inc et al.
    Filed Date: 06/17/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110620-0201.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 08, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3828-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: PJM Queue No. W1-076; Original Service Agreement No.
2945 to be effective 5/20/2011.
    Filed Date: 06/20/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110620-5022.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 11, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3829-000.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Power and Light Company.
    Description: Wisconsin Power and Light Company submits tariff
filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: WPL NSP-LBAAOCA to be effective 6/20/2011.
    Filed Date: 06/20/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110620-5024.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 11, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3830-000.
    Applicants: Avista Corporation.
    Description: Avista Corporation submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Revised Appendix 6 to Attachment M to be effective 8/
20/2011.
    Filed Date: 06/20/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110620-5081.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 11, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3831-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Queue Position No. W1-024 ? Original Service Agreement
No. 2943 to be effective 5/20/2011.
    Filed Date: 06/20/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110620-5083.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 11, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3832-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits tariff
filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: Walnut Creek Energy

Generation Tie-Line Facilities Agreement RS. 485 to be effective 6/21/
2011.
    Filed Date: 06/20/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110620-5100.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 11, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3833-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: 2220 BP Wind Energy North America, Inc. GIA to be
effective 5/23/2011.
    Filed Date: 06/20/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110620-5107.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 11, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3834-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: 2221 Prairie Breeze Wind Energy, LLC GIA to be
effective 5/23/2011.
    Filed Date: 06/20/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110620-5109.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 11, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3835-000.
    Applicants: Southwestern Electric Power Company.
    Description: Southwestern Electric Power Company's Compliance
report of expenditures recorded in calendar year 2010, and for its
projected 2011 CWIP expenditures.
    Filed Date: 06/20/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110620-5110.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 11, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3836-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits tariff
filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: LGIA Navy 1 Project Coso Finance Partners
to be effective 6/2/2011.
    Filed Date: 06/20/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110620-5113.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 11, 2011.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES11-3-001.
    Applicants: MDU Resources Group, Inc.
    Description: Request for Amendment to Application of MDU Resources
Group, Inc.
    Filed Date: 06/20/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110620-5111.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 11, 2011.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    As it relates to any qualifying facility filings, the notices of
self-certification [or self-recertification] listed above, do not
institute a proceeding regarding qualifying facility status. A notice
of self-certification [or self-recertification] simply provides
notification that the entity making the filing has determined the
facility named in the notice meets the applicable criteria to be a
qualifying facility. Intervention and/or protest do not lie in dockets
that are qualifying facility self-certifications or self-
recertifications. Any person seeking to challenge such qualifying
facility status may do so by filing a motion pursuant to 18 CFR
292.207(d)(iii). Intervention and protests may be filed in response to
notices of qualifying facility dockets other than self-certifications
and self-recertifications.
    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 St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings 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 docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 20, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-15813 Filed 6-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 76 (Friday, April 19, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23497-23503]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09271]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0246; FRL-9381-8]

Propiconazole; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation amends existing tolerances for residues of
propiconazole in or on multiple commodities which are identified and
discussed later in this document. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC
requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective April 19, 2013. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before June 18, 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-2012-0246, 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: Heather Garvie, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

B. 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-2012-0246 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
June 18, 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 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-2012-0246, 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 May 23, 2012 (Volume 77, FR 30481) (FRL-
9347-8), EPA issued a notice pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
2F7975) by Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300 Greensboro, NC
27419-8300. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.434 be amended by
establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide propiconazole,
1H-1,2,4-Triazole, 1-{[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-
yl]methyl{time} -, and its metabolites determined as 2,4-
dichlorobenzoic acid and expressed as parent compound in or on barley,
hay from 1.4 parts per million (ppm) to 30 ppm; barley, straw from 10
ppm to 20 ppm; barley, grain from 0.3 ppm to 3 ppm; oat, forage from
1.7 ppm to 4 ppm; oat, hay from 1.4 ppm to 15 ppm; oat, grain from 0.3
ppm to 3 ppm; rye, forage from 1.7 ppm to 9 ppm; rye, straw from 10 ppm
to 9 ppm; wheat, forage from 1.7 ppm to 15 ppm; wheat, hay from 1.4 ppm
to 30 ppm; wheat, straw from 10 ppm to 20 ppm; and grain, aspirated
fractions from 30 ppm to 108 ppm. That notice referenced a summary of
the petition prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, the registrant,
which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There
were no comments received in response to the notice of filing. Based
upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA is revising the
existing tolerance level for barley, bran; and grain, aspirated
fractions. Additionally the Agency is maintaining the existing
tolerance level for rye, straw. The reasons for these changes are
explained in Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

tolerance and to ``ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no
harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the
pesticide chemical residue * * *.''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified 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 propiconazole including
exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action.
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with propiconazole
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.
    Propiconazole has low to moderate toxicity in experimental animals
by the oral, dermal, and inhalation routes, is moderately irritating to
the eyes, minimally irritating to the skin, and is a dermal sensitizer.
    The primary target organ for propiconazole toxicity in animals is
the liver. Increased liver weights were seen in mice after subchronic
or chronic oral exposures to propiconazole. Liver lesions such as
vacuolation of hepatocytes, ballooned liver cells, foci of enlarged
hepatocytes, hypertrophy and necrosis are characteristic of
propiconazole toxicity in rats and mice. Decreased body weight gain was
also seen in subchronic, chronic, developmental and reproductive
studies in animal studies. Dogs appeared to be more sensitive to the
localized toxicity of propiconazole as manifested by stomach
irritations at 6 mg/kg/day and above.
    In rabbits, developmental toxicity occurred at a higher dose than
the maternally toxic dose, while in rats, developmental toxicity
occurred at lower doses than maternal toxic doses. Increased incidences
of rudimentary ribs occurred in rat and rabbit fetuses. Increased cleft
palate malformations were noted in two studies in rats. In one
published study in rats, developmental effects (malformations of the
lung and kidneys, incomplete ossification of the skull, caudal
vertebrae and digits, extra rib (14th rib) and missing sternbrae), were
reported at doses that were not maternally toxic. In the two generation
reproduction study in rats, offspring toxicity occurred at a higher
dose than the parental toxic dose. Propiconazole was negative for
mutagenicity in the in vitro BALB/3T3 cell transformation assay,
bacterial reverse mutation assay, Chinese hamster bone marrow
chromosomal aberration assay, unscheduled DNA synthesis studies in
human fibroblasts and primary rat hepatocytes, mitotic gene conversion
assay, and the dominant lethal assay in mice. It caused proliferative
changes in the rat liver with or without pretreatment with an
initiator, like phenobarbital, a known liver tumor promoter. Liver
enzyme induction studies with propiconazole in mice demonstrated that
propiconazole is a strong phenobarbital type inducer of xenobiotic
metabolizing enzymes. Hepatocellular proliferation studies in mice
suggest that propiconazole induces cell proliferation followed by
treatment-related hypertrophy in a manner similar to the known
hypertrophic agent phenobarbital.
    Propiconazole was carcinogenic to male mice. Propiconazole was not
carcinogenic to rats or to female mice. The Agency classified
propiconazole as a possible human carcinogen and recommended that for
the purpose of risk characterization the reference Dose (RfD) approach
be used for quantification of human risk. Propiconazole produced liver
tumors in male mice only at a high dose that was toxic to the liver. At
doses below the RfD, liver toxicity is not expected; therefore, tumors
are also not expected.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by propiconazole 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 the document titled ``Propiconazole Human Health
Risk Assessment for an Amended Section 3 Registration on Sugarcane'' on
pages 12-18 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0772.

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 propiconazole used for
human risk assessment is discussed in Unit B of the final rule
published in the Federal Register of Wednesday, May 11, 2011 (76 FR
27261) (FRL-8873-2).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to propiconazole, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing propiconazole
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.434. EPA assessed dietary exposures from
propiconazole 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 propiconazole. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food
consumption information from the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey,
What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). This dietary survey was
conducted from 2003 to 2008. As to residue levels in food, EPA
conducted an acute dietary analysis for propiconazole residues of
concern using tolerance levels and 100 percent crop treated (PCT) for
all existing and proposed uses.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA's NHANES/
WWEIA. This dietary survey was conducted from 2003 to 2008. As to
residue levels in food, EPA conducted a chronic dietary

analysis for propiconazole residues of concern using tolerance levels
for some commodities, average field trial residues for the remaining
commodities, and 100 PCT for all existing and proposed uses.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that a nonlinear RfD approach is appropriate for assessing
cancer risk to propiconazole. Cancer risk was assessed using the same
exposure estimates as discussed in Unit III.C.1.ii., Chronic exposure.
    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. Section 408(b)(2)(E)
of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the
anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual
levels of pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If EPA
relies on such information, EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA section
408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is
established, modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels
in food are not above the levels anticipated. For the present action,
EPA will issue such data call-ins as are required by FFDCA section
408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be
required to be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of
issuance of these tolerances.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for propiconazole in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of propiconazole. 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.
    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-
GROW) model, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of
propiconazole for acute exposures are estimated to be 55.78 parts per
billion (ppb) for surface water and 0.64 ppb for ground water. For
chronic exposures EDWCs are 21.61 ppb for surface water and 0.64 ppb
for ground water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Propiconazole is
currently registered for the following uses that could result in
residential exposures: Turf, ornamentals and in paint.
    EPA assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions:
Short-term risk to toddlers was assessed for incidental oral and dermal
exposure. The highest incidental oral and dermal exposure scenarios are
expected from residential use on turf. Short-term risk to adults was
assessed for dermal and inhalation residential handler exposure as well
as from post-application dermal exposure. Adult handlers have some
inhalation exposure; however, based on the low vapor pressure of
propiconazole, negligible post application inhalation exposure is
anticipated to occur. The highest post application exposure from
residential use on turf was used to assess risk to short-term aggregate
exposures.
    The only residential use scenario that will result in potential
intermediate-term exposure to propiconazole is dermal and incidental
oral post application exposure to children from wood treatment
(antimicrobial use).
    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.''
    Propiconazole is a member of the triazole-containing class of
pesticides. Although conazoles act similarly in plants (fungi) by
inhibiting ergosterol biosynthesis, there is not necessarily a
relationship between their pesticidal activity and their mechanism of
toxicity in mammals. Structural similarities do not constitute a common
mechanism of toxicity. Evidence is needed to establish that the
chemicals operate by the same, or essentially the same, sequence of
major biochemical events (EPA, 2002). In conazoles, however, a variable
pattern of toxicological responses is found; some are hepatotoxic and
hepatocarcinogenic in mice. Some induce thyroid tumors in rats. Some
induce developmental, reproductive, and neurological effects in
rodents. Furthermore, the conazoles produce a diverse range of
biochemical events including altered cholesterol levels, stress
responses, and altered DNA methylation. It is not clearly understood
whether these biochemical events are directly connected to their
toxicological outcomes. Thus, there is currently no evidence to
indicate that conazoles share common mechanisms of toxicity and EPA is
not following a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of
toxicity for the conazoles. For information regarding EPA's procedures
for cumulating effects from substances found to have a common mechanism
of toxicity, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.
    Propiconazole is a triazole-derived pesticide. This class of
compounds can form the common metabolite 1,2,4-triazole and two
triazole conjugates (triazolylalanine and triazolylacetic acid). To
support existing tolerances and to establish new tolerances for
triazole-derivative pesticides, including propiconazole, U.S. EPA
conducted a human health risk assessment for exposure to 1,2,4-
triazole, triazolylalanine, and triazolylacetic acid resulting from the
use of all current and pending uses of any triazole-derived fungicide.
The risk assessment is a highly conservative, screening-level
evaluation in terms of hazards associated with common metabolites
(e.g., use of a maximum combination of uncertainty factors) and
potential dietary and non-dietary exposures (i.e., high end estimates
of both dietary and non-dietary exposures). In addition, the Agency
retained the additional 10X FQPA safety factor for the protection of
infants and children. The assessment includes evaluations of risks for
various subgroups, including those comprised of infants and children.
The Agency's complete risk assessment is found in the propiconazole
reregistration docket at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket
Identification (ID) Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0497.

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. In the developmental
toxicity study in rats, fetal effects observed in this study at a dose
lower than that evoking maternal toxicity are considered to be
quantitative evidence of increased

susceptibility of fetuses to in utero exposure to propiconazole. In the
developmental toxicity study in rabbits, neither quantitative nor
qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility of fetuses to in utero
exposure to propiconazole was observed in this study. In the 2-
generation reproduction study in rats, neither quantitative nor
qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility of neonates (as
compared to adults) to prenatal and/or postnatal exposure to
propiconazole was observed. There is no evidence of neuropathology or
abnormalities in the development of the fetal nervous system from the
available toxicity studies conducted with propiconazole. In the rat
acute neurotoxicity study, there was evidence of mild neurobehavioral
effects at 300 mg/kg, but no evidence of neuropathology from
propiconazole administration. Although there was quantitative evidence
of increased susceptibility of the young following exposure to
propiconazole in the developmental rat study, the Agency determined
there is a low degree of concern for this finding and no residual
uncertainties because the increased susceptibility was based on minimal
toxicity at high doses of administration, clear NOAELs and LOAELs have
been identified for all effects of concern, and a clear dose-response
has been well defined.
    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 propiconazole is complete except for
an immunotoxicity study. In the absence of specific immunotoxicity
studies, EPA has evaluated the available propiconazole toxicity data to
determine whether an additional database uncertainty factor is needed
to account for potential immunotoxicity. There was no evidence of
adverse effects on the organs of the immune system in any propiconazole
study. In addition, propiconazole does not belong to a class of
chemicals (e.g., the organotins, heavy metals, or halogenated aromatic
hydrocarbons) that would be expected to be immunotoxic. Based on the
considerations in this Unit, EPA does not believe that conducting a
special Harmonized Guideline 870.7800 immunotoxicity study will result
in a POD less than the NOAEL of 10.0 mg/kg/day used in calculating the
cPAD for propiconazole, and therefore, an additional safety factor is
not needed to account for potential immunotoxicity.
    ii. Based on a weight of the evidence approach, EPA has waived the
requirement for a subchronic neurotoxicity study for propiconazole.
This approach considered all of the available hazard and exposure
information for propiconazole, including: (1) The lack of neurotoxicity
and neurobehavioral effects seen in the propiconazole toxicity
database; (2) the liver is the primary target organ of propiconazole
toxicity, and decreased body weight is the most sensitive endpoint in
repeated-dose studies; (3) the exposure risk estimates using oral PODs
and based on non-neurotoxic endpoints are conservative, health
protective, and provide adequate margins of safety despite lacking a
subchronic neurotoxicity study; and (4) a subchronic neurotoxicity
study is unlikely to provide a lower endpoint than those currently used
for risk assessment.
    iii. Although an apparent increased quantitative susceptibility was
observed in fetuses and offspring, for the reasons noted in this Unit
residual uncertainties or concerns for prenatal and/or postnatal
toxicity are minimal.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The acute dietary food exposure assessments were performed
based on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues, while the chronic used
average field trial residues and 100 PCT. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to propiconazole in drinking water. EPA used
similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure
of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These
assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by
propiconazole.

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 propiconazole will occupy 85% of the aPAD for children 1-2 years
old, the population group 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
propiconazole from food and water will utilize 24% of the cPAD for
children 1-2 years old the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding
residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of
propiconazole is not expected.
    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). Propiconazole
is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term
residential exposure and the Agency has determined that it is
appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water and
with short-term residential exposures to propiconazole. Using the
exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures,
EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential
exposure result in an aggregate MOE of 96 for toddlers (1-2 years old).
    This assessment is considered very conservative in that the
residential incidental oral post-application exposure was calculated by
combining three screening level assessments (which by themselves
already have conservative estimates). Accordingly, even though this MOE
is not as large as the target MOE of 100, the difference is small and
is more than offset by the conservative exposure assumptions.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. The only residential use scenario that
will result in potential intermediate term exposure to propiconazole is
post application exposure to children from wood treatment
(antimicrobial use). The aggregate MOE is 120, which is greater than
the target MOE of 100. Therefore, this scenario is not of concern.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. EPA considers the
chronic aggregate risk assessment to be protective of any aggregate
cancer risk.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to propiconazole residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology, a high performance liquid
chromatography with ultraviolet detection method (HPLC/UV Method AG-
671A) is available to enforce the tolerance expression. The method may
be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental
Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level. The Codex Alimentarius
Commission has established several maximum residue limits (MRLs) for
propiconazole in/on straw and fodder of barley, rye, and wheat along
with a MRL for barley grain at levels different than the U.S. tolerance
levels. The reason for this is that the Codex MRLs are expressed in
terms of residues of propiconazole alone, i.e., the Codex MRLs do not
include residues of the metabolites in the tolerance values, while the
U.S. tolerances are expressed in terms of combined residues of
propiconazole and its metabolites containing the 2,4-DCBA moiety. In
addition, the approved uses for propiconazole in the United States will
result in residues that exceed the CODEX MRLs.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    The petitioner requested a tolerance level of 9.0 ppm for rye,
straw and a tolerance level of 108 ppm for grain, aspirated fractions.
The petitioner did not request an amended tolerance level for barley,
bran. Based on available residue data, the Agency has determined that
the currently established tolerance of 10.0 ppm for rye, straw should
remain and that no change to this tolerance level should be made. The
Agency has revised the tolerance level of 108 ppm for grain, aspirated
fractions to 110 ppm. Additionally, the Agency determined that the
established tolerance level of 0.6 ppm for barley, bran needed to be
increased to 6.0 ppm. The petitioner has subsequently submitted a
revised petition to the Agency requesting these changes. The
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development tolerance
calculation procedures were utilized in determining the appropriate
tolerance level for the requested amended uses. Changes in recommended
tolerance are based on the use of these calculation procedures along
with rounding of the recommended tolerance.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of
propiconazole, 1-[[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-
yl]methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole), in or on barley, grain at 3.0 ppm;
barley, hay at 30 ppm; barley, straw at 20 ppm; grain, aspirated
fractions at 110 ppm; oat, forage at 4.0 ppm; oat grain at 3.0 ppm;
oat, hay at 15 ppm; rye, forage at 9.0 ppm; wheat, forage at 15 ppm;
wheat, hay at 30 ppm; wheat, straw at 20 ppm. Additionally, EPA is
revising the existing tolerance for barley, bran to 6.0 ppm.

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: April 11, 2013.
G. Jeffrey Herndon,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

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

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.434, paragraph (a), revise the following entries in the
table to read as follows:

Sec.  180.434  Propiconazole; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

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

                                * * * * *
Barley, bran..............................................           6.0
Barley, grain.............................................           3.0
Barley, hay...............................................          30
Barley, straw.............................................          20

                                * * * * *
Grain, aspirated fractions................................         110

                                * * * * *
Oat, forage...............................................           4.0
Oat, grain................................................           3.0
Oat, hay..................................................          15

                                * * * * *
Rye, forage...............................................           9.0

                                * * * * *
Wheat, forage.............................................          15
Wheat, hay................................................          30
Wheat, straw..............................................          20
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-09271 Filed 4-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 76 (Friday, April 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 23622]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09354]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

In the Matter of NewTech Brake Corp., Order of Suspension of
Trading

April 17, 2013.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
NewTech Brake Corp. because it has not filed any periodic reports since
the period ended November 30, 2005.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed company. Therefore, it is ordered,
pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that
trading in the securities of the above-listed company is suspended for
the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on April 17, 2013, through 11:59 p.m. EDT
on April 30, 2013.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-09354 Filed 4-17-13; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


   Northwest Airlines, Inc.			Tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>

                        901 15th Street, NW			Fax.<PHONE_NUMBER>

                        Suite 310

                        Washington, DC  20005

                         Megan Rae Rosia

                         Managing Director & Associate General Counsel

  DATE \@ "MMMM d, yyyy"  June 27, 2003

Paul L. Gretch

Director

Office of International Aviation

Department of Transportation

Room 6402, X-40

400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590

Re:	Notice of Continuation of Codesharing between Northwest Airlines,
Inc. and Air China International Corp. (U.S.-China) (Dockets
OST-98-3901, 99-5443, 00-6806, 00-6819, 00-6909, 01-10172, 01-10603 and
02-11808)

Dear Mr. Gretch:

On April 2, 2003, Northwest Airlines, Inc. (“Northwest”) notified
the Department in the above-referenced dockets that Northwest and Air
China International Corp. (“Air China”) intended to terminate all
codesharing effective June 30, 2003.  This letter is to advise that
Northwest and Air China intend to continue codesharing for purposes of
carriage of mail only.  The carriers therefore do not withdraw their
application in Docket OST-01-10603 to renew and consolidate, and ask the
Department to otherwise maintain their existing authority in the
above-referenced dockets to enable the carriers to continue to codeshare
for purposes of carriage of mail.

Respectfully,

/s/ Megan Rae Rosia /s/

Megan Rae Rosia

Managing Director, Government Affairs

   & Associate General Counsel

SERVICE LIST

  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 28, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12678-12679]
[FR Doc No: 2023-04015]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0078; FRL-10738-01-OCSPP]

Cyantraniliprole; Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of
Application for New Uses

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has received an application to register new uses for
pesticide products containing cyantraniliprole, a currently registered
active ingredient. Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and
opportunity to comment on the application.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 30, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0078, through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://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. Additional
instructions on commenting and visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

II. Registration Application

    EPA has received an application to register pesticide products
containing cyantraniliprole, a currently registered active ingredient.
Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C.
136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity
to comment on this application. Notice of receipt of this application
does not imply a decision by the Agency on this application.
     EPA File Symbol: 279-9613, 279-9615, 279-9616. Docket ID
Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0078. Applicant: FMC Corporation, 2929 Walnut
St., Philadelphia, PA 19104. Active Ingredient: Cyantraniliprole.
Product Type: Insecticide. Proposed Use: Herb

group 25, hops, papaya, spice group 26 and greenhouse lettuce. Crop
group expansions to field corn subgroup 15-22C; sweet corn subgroup 15-
22D; and rice subgroup 15-22F. Crop group conversions to edible podded
bean subgroup 6-22A; edible podded pea subgroup 6-22B; succulent
shelled bean subgroup 6-22C; succulent shelled pea subgroup 6-22D;
pulses, dried shelled bean, except soybean subgroup 6-22E; pulses,
dried shelled pea subgroup 6-22F; and forage and hay of legume
vegetables (except soybean) subgroup 7-22A. Contact: RD.
    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: February 17, 2023.
Daniel Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2023-04015 Filed 2-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 209 (Thursday, October 29, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66614-66615]
[FR Doc No: 2015-27612]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0041; Notice 2]

Tireco, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Tireco, Inc., (Tireco) has determined that certain Tireco
Traction tires do not fully comply with paragraph S6.5(b) of Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for
Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of More than 4,536 Kilograms (10,000 pounds)
and Motorcycles. Tireco has filed an appropriate report dated March 30,
2015, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports.

ADDRESSES: For further information on this decision contact Abraham
Diaz, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile
(202) 366-5930.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see
implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556), Tireco submitted a petition for
an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety.
    Notice of receipt of the petition was published with a 30-day
public comment period, on June 11, 2015 in the Federal Register (80 FR
33333). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2015-0041.''
    II. Tires Involved: Affected are approximately 1,600 Tireco Power
King Traction size 8.25-20E/10, Power King Traction size 9.00-20 E/10,
Milestar Traction size 8.25-20 E/10, and Milestar Traction size 9.00-20
E/10 tires. These tires were manufactured between March 1, 2014 and
March 22, 2015.
    III. Noncompliance: Tireco explains that the noncompliance is that
the Tire Information Numbers (TINs) required to be marked on the tire
sidewalls by paragraph S6.5(b) of FMVSS No. 119 are incomplete because
they do not include the tire size codes required by 49 CFR part
574.5(b).
    IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S6.5 of FMVSS No. 119 requires in
pertinent part:

    S6.5 Tire Markings. Except as specified in this paragraph, each
tire shall be marked on each sidewall with the information in
paragraph (a) through (j) of this section. The markings shall be
placed between the maximum section width (exclusive of sidewall
decorations or curb ribs) and the bead on at least one sidewall,
unless the maximum section width of the tire is located in an area
which is not more than one-fourth of the distance from the bead to
the shoulder of the tire. If the maximum section width falls within
that area, the markings shall appear between the bead and a point
one-half the distance from the bead to the shoulder of the tire, on
at least one sidewall. The markings shall be in letters and numerals
not less than 2 mm (0.078 inch) high and raised above or sunk below
the tire surface not less than 0.4 mm (0.015 inch), except that the
marking depth shall be not less than 0.25mm (0.010 inch) in the case
of motorcycle tires. The tire identification and the DOT symbol
labeling shall comply with part 574 of this chapter. Markings may
appear on only one sidewall and the entire sidewall area may be used
in the case of motorcycle tires and recreational, boat, baggage, and
special trailer tires . . .
    (b) The tire identification number required by part 574 of this
chapter. This number may be marked on only one sidewall. . . .

    V. Summary of TIRECO's Arguments: Tireco state its belief that the
subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for
the following reasons:
    (A) Tireco believes that the absence of the tire size code from the
TIN has no impact on the operational performance of the subject tires
or on the safety of vehicles on which the subject tires are mounted
because the subject tires meet or exceed all of the applicable
performance requirements specified by FMVSS No. 119.
    (B) Tireco states that even though the size code is absent from the
TIN, the tire size information is readily available to consumers in a
more understandable way by virtue of the actual tire size marking on
the sidewalls.
    (C) Tireco also states that in the unlikely event that any of the
subject tires are ever found to contain a defect or a substantive
noncompliance that would warrant a recall, the recalled tires could be
adequately identified through the partial [T]IN that is stamped on the
sidewall.
    (D) Tireco referenced inconsequentiality petitions NHTSA has
previously granted in the past that have

addressed what it believes are similar issues.
    Tireco is not aware of any crashes, injuries, customer complaints,
or field reports associated with the subject noncompliance.
    Tireco has additionally informed NHTSA that the fabricating
manufacturer has corrected the molds at the manufacturing plant so that
no additional tires will be manufactured with the noncompliance.
    In summation, Tireco believes that the described noncompliance of
the subject tires is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that
its petition, to exempt Tireco from providing recall notification of
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.
    NHTSA'S Decision:
    NHTSA's Analysis: Although the tire size codes were not included as
part of the TINs on the effected tires, the actual size of each tire is
clearly marked on its sidewall and should allow end-users to be able to
select a tire size for their vehicles. In addition, in the event that
the tires are subject to a recall or need to be identified as part of a
defect investigation, the tires could be identified by the correctly
stamped partial TIN on the sidewall. Subsequent to receiving the
subject petition, NHTSA contacted Tireco and received its verification
that a registration card submitted with an incomplete TIN for the
subject tires would be accepted and registered correctly.
    The subject noncompliance also has no effect on the operational
safety of vehicles on which these tires are mounted. NHTSA's Decision:
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tireco has
met its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS No. 119 noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tireco's petition
is hereby granted and Tireco is not obligated to provide notification
of, and a remedy for, that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and
30120.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject tires that Tireco no longer
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
However, any decision on this petition does not relieve tire
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant tires under their control after Tireco
notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: Delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-27612 Filed 10-28-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


VIA E-MAIL AND OVERNIGHT MAIL

September 19, 2013

Ms. Susan Fairchild
Sector Policies and Programs Division
Metals and Minerals Group (D243-02)
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
4930 Old Page Road
Durham, NC  27703

      RE:	EPA's Draft Work Practice Standards For HF and HCl Emissions From Wool Fiberglass Melting Furnaces

Dear Ms. Fairchild:

NAIMA greatly appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the attached "Draft Work Practice Standards for HF and HCl Emissions from Wool Fiberglass Melting Furnaces."  The attached document and accompanying redlined document convey NAIMA's comments.  Throughout the document, NAIMA has eliminated the use of the word "e-glass," which in EPA's draft seems to have referenced glass from electronics.  "E-glass" is an industry term of art used to describe a specific glass type in the continuous filament fiber glass industry which was originally developed for military uses, but e-glass is not the type of glass used at facilities subject to NNN in the production of wool fiber glass.

Please note that there are some instances where a small amount of fluoride is included in the glass formulation used to produce wool fiber glass.  Test results on melters using fluoride in the glass chemistry at locations subject to NNN were similar for HF to results for other HF tests in the ICR process, and in no event exceeded a 0.25 ton per year emission rate.

In addition, the rolling average referenced in the revised work practice needs to be a flexible average simply because the companies do not test monthly.  The average referenced in the work practice will likely be based in multiple tests, but not monthly tests.

Please contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Angus E. Crane
Executive Vice President, General Counsel

Attachments
cc:	Mr. Keith W. Barnett
	Group Leader, Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards
	Sector Policies and Programs Division, Mineral and Manufacturing Group
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
      4930 Old Page Road
      Durham, NC  27703


[Federal Register: May 2, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 84)]
[Notices]
[Page 24288]
[DOCID:fr02my07-50]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12470-001]

City of Broken Bow, OK; Notice Soliciting Scoping Comments

April 25, 2007.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Original Major License.
    b. Project No.: 12470-001.
    c. Date filed: July 26, 2006.
    d. Applicant: City of Broken Bow, Oklahoma.
    e. Name of Project: Broken Bow Re-Regulation Dam Hydropower
Project.
    f. Location: On the Mountain Fork River in McCurtain County,
Oklahoma. The project would be located at the United States Army Corps
of Engineers' (Corps) Broken Bow Re-Regulation Dam and would occupy
lands administered by the Corps.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)--825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Olen Hill, City Manager, City of Broken Bow,
Oklahoma, 210 North Broadway, Broken Bow, Oklahoma 74728; (405) 584-
2282.
    i. FERC Contact: Peter Leitzke at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    j. Deadline for filing scoping comments: May 25, 2007.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    Scoping comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in
lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``eFiling'' link.

    k. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    l. The proposed run-of-river project, using the Corps' existing
Broken Bow Re-Regulation Dam and Reservoir, would consist of: (1) Three
93.5-foot-long penstocks through the eastern portion of the re-
regulation dam; (2) a 112-foot-wide by 129-foot-long powerhouse
containing three turbine-generator units and having a total installed
capacity of 4 megawatts; (3) a 170-foot-long tailrace that would return
flows to the Mountain Fork River; (4) a 1,891-foot-long, 13.8-kilovolt
transmission line; and (5) appurtenant facilities. The project would
have an average annual generation of 17,500 megawatt-hours.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''

link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-
866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available for
inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.
    n. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov.esubscribenow.htm
 to be notified via e-mail of new filings

and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For
assistance, contact FERC Online Support.
    o. Scoping Process: The Commission staff intends to prepare a
single Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Broken Bow Re-Regulation
Dam Hydropower Project in accordance with the National Environmental
Policy Act. The EA will consider both site-specific and cumulative
environmental impacts and reasonable alternatives to the proposed
action.
    The Commission staff, agency representatives, and interested
members of the public visited the project site and attended project
information meetings conducted by the City of Broken Bow in 2001. The
City of Broken Bow worked with the resource agencies and members of the
public under the Alternative Licensing Process in preparing the license
application, including preparation of a Draft Environmental Assessment
which was filed as part of the application. Therefore, we do not
anticipate at this time that there is adequate justification: (1) To
arrange for Commission staff and interested members of the public to
visit the project site; or (2) to hold a public meeting near the
project site. Instead, we are soliciting comments, recommendations, and
information on the Scoping Document (SD) issued on April 24, 2007.
    Copies of the SD outlining the subject areas to be addressed in the
EA were distributed to the parties on the Commission's mailing list and
the applicant's service list. Copies of the SD may be viewed on the web
at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket

number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or for TTY,
(202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-8336 Filed 5-1-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 165 (Friday, August 26, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52551-52552]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18467]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0178; FRL-10081-01-OW]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; EPA
Application Materials for the Water Infrastructure Finance and
Innovation Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to
submit an information collection request (ICR), ``EPA Application
Materials for the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act''
(EPA ICR no. 2549.03, OMB Control No. 2040-0292) to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before doing so, the EPA is soliciting
public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information
collection as described below. This is a request for approval of a
renewal. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 25, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2016-0178, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or
by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail
Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amelia Letnes, WIFIA Management
Division, Office of Wastewater Management, 4203M, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460;

telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information the EPA will be collecting are available in the public
docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), EPA is soliciting comments and information to
enable it to: (i) evaluate whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Agency, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the
burden of the proposed collection of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. EPA will consider the comments received and
amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be
submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, EPA will issue
another Federal Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR
to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: The collection of information is necessary in order to
receive applications for credit assistance pursuant to section 5024 of
the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) of 2014, 33
U.S.C. 3903. The purpose of the WIFIA program is to provide Federal
credit assistance in the form of direct loans and loan guarantees to
eligible clean water and drinking water projects.
    WIFIA requires that an eligible entity submit to the Administrator
an application at such time, in such manner, and containing such
information, as the Secretary or the Administrator may require to
receive assistance under WIFIA. To satisfy these requirements, EPA must
collect an application from prospective borrowers seeking funding. The
Letters of Interest and Applications collected from prospective
borrowers through this solicitation will be used by the EPA, WIFIA
program staff, and reviewers to evaluate applications for credit
assistance under the WIFIA eligibility requirements and selection
criteria.
    Form Numbers: EPA 6100-030, 6100-031, and 6100-032.
    Respondents/affected entities: The respondents affected by this
collection activity include: corporations, partnerships, joint
ventures, trusts, federal, state, or local government entities, tribal
governments or a consortium of tribal governments, and state
infrastructure finance authorities. The Letters of Interest and
Applications collected from prospective borrowers through this
solicitation will be used by EPA to evaluate requests for credit
assistance under the WIFIA eligibility requirements and selection
criteria.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: The collection is required to
obtain credit assistance pursuant to section 5024 of WIFIA, 33 U.S.C.
3903.
    Estimated number of respondents: 105 per year (total).
    Frequency of response: one per funding round.
    Total estimated burden: 10,450 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $10,000,000.00 (per year), includes no
annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs.
    Change in Estimates: There is a decrease of 375 hours in the total
estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by
OMB. This decrease is due to a reduction in the expected number of
collections from 55 to 45.

Andrew D. Sawyers,
Director, Office of Wastewater Management.
[FR Doc. 2022-18467 Filed 8-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P