[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 104 (Monday, June 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31031-31033]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13127]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9928-46-OGC]

Proposed Settlement Agreement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed settlement agreement; request for public
comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act (the
``Act''), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), notice is hereby given of a proposed
settlement agreement to address a lawsuit filed by National Parks
Conservation Association, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy,
Friends of the Boundary Waters, Voyageurs National Park Association,
Fresh Energy, and the Sierra Club (collectively, ``Plaintiffs'') and
Intervenor Defendant Northern States Power Company Minnesota, d/b/a
Xcel Energy in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota: National Parks Conservation Association, et al. v. EPA, Civ.
No. 12-3043 (D. Minn.). On December 5, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a
complaint alleging that the Administrator of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') had failed to perform a

mandatory duty to respond to a 2009 letter by the Department of the
Interior (``DOI'') certifying that visibility impairment in Minnesota's
Voyageurs National Park and Michigan's Isle Royale National Park is
reasonably attributable to emissions from Xcel Energy's coal-fired
Sherburne County Generating Station (``Sherco'') in Minnesota. The
proposed settlement agreement addresses Plaintiffs' claims and
establishes a deadline for EPA to take final action to revise the
Minnesota Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment (``RAVI'')
Federal Implementation Plan (``FIP'').

DATES: Written comments on the proposed settlement agreement must be
received by July 1, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OGC-2015-0347, online at www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred method);
by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by mail to EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; or by hand delivery or courier to
EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. Comments on a disk or CD-ROM should be
formatted in Word or ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters
and any form of encryption, and may be mailed to the mailing address
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew C. Marks, Air and Radiation
Law Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Additional Information About the Proposed Settlement Agreement

    On October 21, 2009, DOI provided a letter to EPA in which DOI
stated ``that there exists reasonably attributable impairment of
visibility at Voyageurs and Isle Royale due to emissions from the
Sherco facility.'' On December 5, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their
complaint in this litigation alleging that, since receiving DOI's
letter, the Administrator had failed to perform a mandatory duty
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.302(c)(4)(iii) and (iv) to promulgate a federal
RAVI best available retrofit technology (``BART'') determination for
Sherco. In response to the lawsuit, EPA filed an answer on February 1,
2013, denying that the Administrator has a mandatory duty to promulgate
RAVI BART for Sherco because EPA has not determined that visibility
impairment at one or more Class I areas is reasonably attributable to
emissions from Sherco. On March 25, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an Amended
Complaint, alleging that the Administrator had failed to perform a
mandatory duty ``to identify and analyze for BART each existing
stationary facility which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or
contribute to impairment of visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal
area where the impairment in the mandatory Class I Federal area is
reasonably attributable to that existing stationary facility.''
    The proposed settlement agreement would resolve the lawsuit filed
by Plaintiffs by establishing that EPA will propose to revise the
Minnesota RAVI FIP to include specific sulfur dioxide
(``SO2'') emission limitations for Sherco Units 1, 2, and 3,
and take final action on the proposal within seven months of the
effective date of the settlement agreement. The proposed settlement
agreement also provides that nothing in the agreement shall be
construed to limit or modify any discretion afforded EPA by the Act or
by general principles of administrative law in taking those actions.
See the proposed settlement agreement and attachment for specific
details.
    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication
of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the
proposed settlement agreement from persons who were not named as
parties or intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the
Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed
settlement agreement if the comments disclose facts or considerations
that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate,
or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the
Department of Justice determines that consent to this settlement
agreement should be withdrawn, the terms of the agreement will be
affirmed.

II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Settlement
Agreement

A. How can I get a copy of the settlement agreement?

    The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2015-0347) contains a copy of the proposed settlement
agreement. The official public docket is available for public viewing
at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA
Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center 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 OEI Docket is (202) 566-
1752.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
www.regulations.gov. You may use the www.regulations.gov to submit or
view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the
official public docket, and to access those documents in the public
docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, key in
the appropriate docket identification number then select ``search''.
    It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments,
whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available
for public viewing online at www.regulations.gov without change, unless
the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information claimed as CBI
and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not
included in the official public docket or in the electronic public
docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including
copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not be placed
in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in
printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all
docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access
any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket
Center.

B. How and to whom do I submit comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD
ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further
information

on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or contact
information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part
of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made
available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    Use of the www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments to EPA
electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The
electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail
(email) system is not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an
email comment directly to the Docket without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email address is automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

    Dated: May 20, 2015.
Lorie J. Schmidt,
Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2015-13127 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 110 (Monday, June 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 32936]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13275]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL14-59-000]

Powerex Corp. v. California Independent System Operator
Corporation; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on May 30, 2014, pursuant to section 206 of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice
and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, and section 206 of the Federal Power
Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e, Powerex Corp. (Powerex or Complainant), filed a
formal complaint against California Independent System Operator
Corporation (CAISO or Respondent) requesting that the Commission issue
an order finding that CAISO should not have imposed Imbalance Energy
charges related to a power disruption on August 18, 2013 caused by the
Spring Peak fire and to direct CAISO to treat other Uncontrollable
Forces going forward as events that do not trigger the imposition of
Imbalance Energy charges, as more fully explained in the complaint.
    Powerex certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the
contacts for CAISO as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate
Officials.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 30, 2014.

    Dated: June 2, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-13275 Filed 6-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 11, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61237-61238]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21387]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0169; Airspace Docket No. 21-ASO-3]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment Class D and Class E Airspace; South Florida; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is correcting a
final rule that appeared in the Federal Register on September 8, 2021,
amending airspace for several airports in the south Florida area. This
action corrects the dividing line between Pompano Beach Airpark and
Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport, by updating the geographic
coordinates that define the line. Controlled airspace is necessary for
the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations
in the area.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, November 3, 2022. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11
and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701
Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    The FAA published a final rule in the Federal Register for Docket
No. FAA

2021-0169 (86 FR 50245, September 8, 2021), amending Class D and Class
E airspace for eight airports in the south Florida area. Subsequent to
publication, the FAA found that the dividing line between Pompano Beach
Airpark and Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport had moved due to the
geographic coordinates of these airports being updated. This action
corrects this error by amending the dividing line to mirror the
previous line. Also, the effective date to amend Class D and Class E
airspace for North Perry Airport, Miami-Opa Locka Executive Airport,
Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport, Pompano Beach Airpark, and Boca
Raton Airport was updated three times so as to coincide with the Class
B and Class C actions, which were also delayed.

Good Cause for No Notice and Comment

    Section 553(b) (3) (B) of Title 5, United States Code, (the
Administrative Procedure Act) authorizes agencies to dispense with
notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency for ``good
cause'' finds that those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary,
or contrary to the public interest.'' Under this section, an agency,
upon finding good cause, may issue a final rule without seeking comment
prior to the rulemaking. The FAA finds that prior notice and public
comment to this final rule is unnecessary due to the fact that there is
no substantive change to the rule.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations
and Reporting Points, dated August 19, 2022, and became effective
September 15, 2022. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11G
lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic routes, and
reporting points.

Correction to Final Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by correcting the dividing line between Pompano Beach Airpark
and Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport in the final rule of Amendment
Class D and Class E Airspace; South Florida.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected
to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022, is
amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

ASO FL D Pompano Beach, FL [Amended]

Pompano Beach, Airpark, FL
(Lat. 26[deg]14'51'' N, long. 80[deg]06'40'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,500 feet MSL within a 4-mile radius of Pompano Beach Airpark;
excluding that portion southwest of a line between lat.
26[deg]15'48'' N; long. 80[deg]10'59'' W; and lat. 26[deg]13'05'' N;
long. 80[deg]08'36'' W and that portion south of a line between
26[deg]13'05'' N; long. 80[deg]08'36'' W and 26[deg]13'41'' N; long.
80[deg]02'25'' W. This Class D airspace area is effective during the
specific days and times established in advance by a Notice to Air
Missions. The effective days and times will thereafter be
continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

ASO FL D Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport, FL [Amended]

Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport, FL
(Lat. 26[deg]11'50'' N, long. 80[deg]10'15'' W)
Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport, FL
(Lat. 26[deg]04'18'' N, long. 80[deg]08'59'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,500 feet MSL within a 4-mile radius of Fort Lauderdale Executive
Airport; excluding that portion within the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood
International Airport, FL, Class C airspace area and that portion
northeast of a line between lat. 26[deg]15'48'' N; long.
80[deg]10'59'' W; and lat. 26[deg]13'05'' N; long. 80[deg]08'36'' W
and that portion north of a line between 26[deg]13'05'' N; long.
80[deg]08'36'' W and 26[deg]13'20'' N; long. 80[deg]06'07'' W,
thence to 26[deg]13'41'' N; long. 80[deg]02'25'' W. This Class D
airspace area is effective during the specific days and times
established in advance by a Notice to Air Missions. The effective
days and times will thereafter be continuously published in the
Chart Supplement.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on September 26, 2022.
Andreese C. Davis,
Manager, Airspace & Procedures Team South, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2022-21387 Filed 10-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 2, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 106)]
[Notices]
[Page 32155-32156]
[DOCID:fr02jn06-133]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53873; File No. SR-Amex-2006-52]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to
Amend Numerical Designations of Paragraphs in Amex Rule 935--ANTE

May 25, 2006.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on May 19, 2006, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by Amex. The Exchange filed
the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant
to section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon filing with the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    Amex seeks to correct the numerical designations of paragraphs in
Amex Rule 935--ANTE. The text of the proposed rule change is available
on Amex's Web site (http://www.amex.com), at Amex's Office of the

Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, Amex included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    On March 14, 2006, the Exchange submitted a proposal to amend Amex
Rule 935--ANTE to revise the manner in which executed contracts are
allocated when more than one market participant is either quoting, or
has orders, at the Amex best bid or offer at the time the execution
occurs. However, by the time this filing was approved on May 12,
2006,\5\ other changes to Rule 935--ANTE were approved \6\ and the
numerical designations of the new paragraphs to this rule were no
longer in order. This filing merely seeks to correct this formatting
error to keep published rules organized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Exchange Act Release No. 53798 (May 12, 2006), 71 FR
29193 (May 19, 2006).
    \6\ See Exchange Act Release Nos. 53635 (April 12, 2006), 71 FR
20144 (April 12, 2006) and 53652 (April 13, 2006), 71 FR 20422
(April 20, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations under the Act applicable to a
national securities exchange and, in particular, the requirements of
section 6(b) of the Act.\7\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the
proposed rule change is consistent with the section 6(b)(5) of the
Act,\8\ which requires that the rules of an exchange be designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will impose no
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received by the
Exchange on this proposal.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \9\ and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4
\10\ thereunder because it does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; (iii) become operative for 30 days
from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate; and the Exchange has given the Commission
written notice of its intention to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to filing. At any time within 60 days of
the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily
abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such
action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).

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

    Under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) of the Act,\11\ the proposal does not become
operative for 30 days after the date of its filing, or such shorter
time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interest. The Amex has requested that the
Commission waive the five-day pre-filing requirement \12\ and the 30-
day operative delay to allow for the expeditious and accurate
publication of Amex rules. The Commission believes that the Amex's
proposal raises no new issues or regulatory concerns as it is simply a
proposal to reformat rule text changes that have already been approved
by the Commission. Therefore, the Commission, consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest, has determined to
waive the five-day pre-filing requirement and the 30-day operative date
so that the proposal may take effect upon filing.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id.
    \12\ Amex provided the Commission with written notice of its
intent to file the proposed rule change one day prior to the filing
date.
    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-Amex-2006-52 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2006-52. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Amex. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-Amex-2006-52 and should be submitted on or before June
23, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-8538 Filed 6-1-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 29, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38771-38773]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13803]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA- FEMA-2021-0029; OMB No. 1660-0072]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request; Mitigation Grant Programs (Including
Mitigation (MT) Grants Management (Formerly Mitigation (MT) Electronic
Grants (eGrants) and FEMA GO) for Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA),
Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) and Pre-
Disaster Mitigation (PDM)

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

ACTION: 30-Day notice of revision and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the
information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and
Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice

seeks comments concerning FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA)
grant programs specifically, the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM),
the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program,
and the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) program. Under FEMA's HMA
grant programs, State, local, Tribal, and Territorial governments
(SLTTs) seek assistance to support disaster mitigation and provide
opportunities to reduce or eliminate potential losses to SLTTs.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 29, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of
this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular
information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--
Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director,
Information Management Division, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,
at email address [email protected]
or Jennie Orenstein, Branch Chief, Policy, Tools and Training Branch,
Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, at
[email protected], and<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This collection of information is necessary
to implement grants for the FMA, PDM, and BRIC programs.
    The FMA program is authorized pursuant to Sec. 1366, 42 U.S.C.
4104c of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended. FMA was
created as part of the National Flood Insurance Reform Act (NFIRA) of
1994, Public Law 103-325. The Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act
of 2012 (BW-12), Public Law 112-141, consolidated the Repetitive Flood
Claims (RFC) and Severe Repetitive Loss grant (SRL) programs into FMA.
Under FMA, cost-share requirements were changed to allow more Federal
funds for properties with repetitive flood claims. The FMA program,
under 44 CFR part 77 (as of October 1, 2021, previously under 44 CFR
part 79), provides funding for measures taken to reduce or eliminate
the long-term risk of flood damage to buildings, manufactured homes,
and other structures insured under the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP).
    PDM is authorized under Sec. 203, 42 U.S.C. 5133, of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act),
Public Law 93-288, as amended by Sec. 102 of the Disaster Mitigation
Act of 2000, Public Law 106-390. This 30-day FRN differs from the 60-
day FRN because FEMA recently decided to resume providing grants under
the PDM Program to administer congressionally directed spending for
pre-disaster hazard mitigation. The PDM Program makes federal funds
available to state, local, tribal, and territorial governments to plan
for and implement sustainable cost-effective measures designed to
reduce the risk to individuals and property from future natural
hazards, while also reducing reliance on federal funding from future
disasters. The purpose of the PDM Program is to administer
Congressionally directed spending for pre-disaster hazard mitigation.
    On August 4, 2020, FEMA established the BRIC program, implementing
Section 1234 of the Disaster Recovery Reform Act (DRRA), Public Law
115-254. BRIC replaced the PDM grant program that was previously
authorized under Sec. 203 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5133.
    The BRIC program is designed to promote a national culture of
preparedness and public safety through encouraging investments to
protect our communities and infrastructure and through strengthening
national mitigation capabilities to foster resilience. The BRIC program
seeks to fund effective and innovative projects that will reduce risk,
increase resilience, and serve as a catalyst to encourage the whole
community to invest in and adopt policies related to mitigation.
    The guiding principles of the BRIC program include: (1) support
State and local governments, Tribes, and territories through
capability- and capacity-building, to enable them to identify
mitigation actions and implement projects that reduce risks posed by
natural hazards; (2) encourage and enable innovation while allowing
flexibility, consistency, and effectiveness; (3) promote partnerships
and enable high-impact investments to reduce risk from natural hazards
with a focus on critical services and facilities, public
infrastructure, public safety, public health, and communities; (4)
provide a significant opportunity to reduce future losses and minimize
impacts on the Disaster Relief Fund; (5) promote equity, including by
helping members of disadvantaged groups and prioritizing 40 percent of
the benefits to disadvantaged communities as referenced in Executive
Order (E.O.) 14008 in line with the Administration's Justice40
Initiative; and (6) support the adoption and enforcement of building
codes, standards, and policies that will protect the health, safety,
and general welfare of the public, taking into account future
conditions, prominently including the effects of climate change, and
have long-lasting impacts on community risk reduction, including for
critical services and facilities and for future disaster costs. The
BRIC program distributes funds annually and applies a Federal/Non-
Federal cost share.
    In accordance with 2 CFR 200.203, FEMA requires that all parties
interested in receiving FEMA mitigation grants submit an application
package for grant assistance. Applications and subapplications for
BRIC, PDM and FMA are submitted via the appropriate system for the
respective programs, FEMAGo and eGrants. The FEMA GO and eGrants system
have been developed to meet the intent of the e-Government initiative,
authorized by Public Law 106-107. This initiative requires that all
Government agencies both streamline grant application processes and
provide for the means to electronically create, review and submit a
grant application via the internet.
    In order to ensure the timely closeout of grants, 2 CFR 200.329
requires that Non-Federal Entities ``must monitor its activities under
Federal awards to assure compliance with applicable Federal
requirements and performance expectations are being achieved.''
Therefore, under 2 CFR part 200 (for BRIC and PDM) and 44 CFR 77.3
(FMA), recipients must complete and submit progress report(s) to the
FEMA Regional Administrator on a quarterly basis, certifying how the
funds are being used and reporting on the progress of activities funded
under the subrecipient awards made to the Recipient by FEMA. The
Regional Administrator and Recipient negotiate the date for submission
of the first report. Quarterly Progress Reports describe the status of
those projects on which a final payment of the Federal share has not
been made to the Recipient, and outline any problems or circumstances
expected to result in noncompliance with the approved award conditions.
    This proposed information collection previously published in the
Federal Register on December 14, 2021, at 86 FR 71073 with a 60-day
public comment period. FEMA received two comments during this public
comment period. The comments include feedback and substantive
recommendations on program policy and implementation. However, the
information collection is not designed to directly address changes to
policy and implementation

effectiveness. The comments will be reviewed and, as appropriate,
considered for general program development. Thank you for the
substantive comments. The purpose of this notice is to notify the
public that FEMA will submit the information collection abstracted
below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance.

Collection of Information

    Title: Mitigation Grant Programs (including Mitigation (MT) Grants
Management (formerly Mitigation (MT) Electronic Grants (eGrants) and
FEMA GO) for Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA), Building Resilient
Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) and Pre-Disaster Mitigation
(PDM)).
    Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved
collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0072.
    FEMA Forms: FEMA Form FF-206-FY-22-151, Quarterly Progress Report
(QFR).
    Abstract: FEMA's FMA and BRIC programs use an automated grant
application and management system called FEMA GO. The PDM program uses
an automated grant application and management system called MT e-
Grants. These grant programs provide funding for the purpose of
reducing or eliminating the risks to life and property from hazards.
The FEMA GO and eGrants systems include all the application information
needed to apply for funding under these grant programs. FEMA and SLTTs
use the BRIC Panel Review Form to solicit volunteers from SLTTs and
Other Federal Agencies (OFA) to review sub-applicant project
applications. The volunteers will review, and score applications based
on a pre-determined scoring criteria. The PDM, FMA, and BRIC programs
will use the same QPR Form.
    Affected Public: State, Local, Tribal, or Territorial Governments.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 660.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 6,596.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 104,168.
    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: $6,228,883.
    Estimated Respondents' Operation and Maintenance Costs: $0.
    Estimated Respondents' Capital and Start-Up Costs: $0.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government: $7,739,695.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
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; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) 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.

Millicent Brown Wilson,
Records Management Branch Chief, Office of the Chief Administrative
Officer, Mission Support, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2022-13803 Filed 6-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-BW-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 227 (Monday, November 26, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60366-60372]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25690]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0971; FRL-9977-14]

Pyrifluquinazon; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
pyrifluquinazon in or on multiple commodities that are identified and
discussed later in this document. Nichino America, Inc. requested these
tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective November 26, 2018. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before January 25, 2019,
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-2011-0971, 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), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/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-2011-0971 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
January 25, 2019. 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-2011-0971, 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 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.html.
    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 Tolerances

    In the Federal Register of December 9, 2016 (81 FR 89036) (FRL-
9953-69) and September 15, 2017 (82 FR 43352) (FRL-9965-43), EPA issued
a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3),
announcing the filing of pesticide petitions (PP 6F8502 and PP 7E8578,
respectively) by Nichino America, Inc., 4550 New Linden Hill Road,
Suite 501, Wilmington, DE 19808. The petitions requested that 40 CFR
part 180 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the
insecticide pyrifluquinazon, (1-acetyl-3,4-dihydro-3-[(3-
pyridinylmethyl)amino]-6-[1,2,2,2-tetrafluoro-1-
(trifluoromethyl)ethyl]-2(1H)-quinazolinone), as follows: PP 6F8502
requested tolerances for residues in or on Almond, hulls at 0.4 parts
per million (ppm); Brassica head and stem vegetables (crop group 5-16)
at 0.4 ppm; Cattle, fat at 0.01 ppm; Cattle, meat at 0.01 ppm; Cattle,
meat byproducts at 0.01 ppm; Citrus fruits (crop group 10-10) at 0.5
ppm; Citrus, oil at 14 ppm; Cotton, gin byproducts at 4.0 ppm; Cotton,
undelinted seed at 0.2 ppm; Cucurbit vegetables (crop group 9)

at 0.06 ppm; Fruiting vegetables, tomato subgroup 8-10A at 0.20 ppm;
Fruiting vegetables, pepper/eggplant subgroup 8-10B at 0.15 ppm; Goat,
fat at 0.01 ppm; Goat, meat at 0.01 ppm; Goat, meat byproducts at 0.01
ppm; Horse, fat at 0.01 ppm; Horse, meat at 0.01 ppm; Horse, meat
byproducts at 0.01 ppm; Leafy vegetables (crop group 4-16) at 5 ppm;
Leaf petiole vegetables (crop subgroup 22B) at 1.5 ppm; Milk at 0.01
ppm; Pome fruits (crop group 11-10) at 0.04 ppm; Sheep, fat at 0.01
ppm; Sheep, meat at 0.01 ppm; Sheep, meat byproducts at 0.01 ppm; Small
fruit vine climbing subgroup (crop subgroup 13-07F) except fuzzy
kiwifruit at 0.6 ppm; Stone fruits, cherry subgroup 12-12A at 0.2 ppm;
Stone fruits, peach subgroup 12-12B at 0.03 ppm; Stone fruits, plum
subgroup 12-12C at 0.015 ppm; Tree nuts (crop group 14-12) at 0.01 ppm;
and Tuberous and corm vegetables (crop subgroup 1C) at 0.01 ppm and PP
7E8578 requested a tolerance for residues in or on imported tea at 20
ppm. Those documents referenced summaries of the petitions prepared by
Nichino America, Inc., the registrant, which are available in the
docket, http://www.regulations.gov. Comments were received in response
to the first notice of filing, and EPA's response can be found in Unit
IV.C.
    Consistent with the authority in section 408(d)(4)(A)(i), EPA is
establishing tolerances that vary from what the petitioner sought. 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 pyrifluquinazon including
exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action.
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with pyrifluquinazon
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.
    The effects observed following dietary exposure to pyrifluquinazon,
primarily targeted the liver, thyroid, kidney, hematopoietic system,
and the male and female reproductive organs. Nasal toxicity was
observed following chronic oral exposures to rats, mice, and dogs, but
was not observed following inhalation exposure to rats. Inhalation
exposure for 28 days in rats resulted in portal-of-entry effects in the
form of terminal airway inflammation in the lungs of males at an
equivalent oral dose that was higher than those causing nasal effects
in dogs (the most sensitive species for nasal toxicity). Systemic
effects following inhalation exposure to pyrifluquinazon consisted of
clinical signs including palpebral closure, splayed gait, hunched
posture, ataxia, piloerection, lethargy, and ocular effects. No adverse
effects were seen in rats following dermal exposure. Pyrifluquinazon
showed no signs of immunotoxicity.
    Pyrifluquinazon showed signs of increased pre- and postnatal
quantitative susceptibility in rats. In the rat developmental toxicity
study, maternal effects (decreased body weights, and mean gravid
uterine weights) were seen at a higher dose than fetal effects
(decreased anogenital distances (AGD) in males, increased incidences of
skeletal variations, and increased incidences of supernumerary ribs).
In the two-generation reproduction study in rats, systemic parental
effects were consistent with the general systemic toxic effects in rats
and occurred at doses higher than those eliciting offspring and
reproductive effects. Offspring effects included decreased body weights
and decreased AGD in the male pups, which is also considered a
reproductive effect. In the rabbit developmental toxicity study, a
decreased number of live fetuses per doe was observed, which is
considered a maternal and developmental adverse effect since it is
unknown whether the effect occurred from toxicity to maternal animals
or the fetuses. In addition, effects were observed in reproductive
organs (epididymides, testes, uterus).
    Signs of neurotoxicity were observed in the acute neurotoxicity
(ACN) study, and consisted of: Decreased motor activity, prostrate,
ataxia, hyporeactivity, hunched posture, loss of the righting reflex,
coldness to touch, lacrimation, bradyapnea, piloerection, and ptosis.
Signs of neurotoxicity were also observed in the subchronic oral study
and the inhalation study in rats at doses that caused portal-of-entry
effects.
    Exposure to pyrifluquinazon resulted in increased incidences of
testicular interstitial cell tumors (Leydig tumors) in both male rats
and mice. Based on its review of the available data, EPA has concluded
that pyrifluquinazon is ``not likely to be carcinogenic to humans at
levels that do not alter rodent hormone homeostasis.'' This conclusion
is based on the following: (1) The Agency was only able to conclude
that one type of Leydig cell tumor (in the male mice) is treatment-
related because the type of rat tested has a high background rate for
this tumor type; (2) the suggested mode of action is supported by the
available data and indicates that the tumors are not likely to occur
below doses that trigger androgen receptor degradation in sex-specific
tissues leading to changes in circulating androgen related hormones;
and (3) neither the parent molecule nor its metabolites showed evidence
of genotoxicity or mutagenicity. For these reasons and because the
level that triggers tumor development is higher than 70.1 mg/kg/day and
the chronic reference dose is 0.06 mg/kg/day, EPA has determined that
quantification of cancer risk using a non-linear approach (i.e.,
chronic reference dose) will adequately account for all chronic
toxicity, including carcinogenicity that could result from exposure to
pyrifluquinazon.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by pyrifluquinazon 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 ``Pyrifluquinazon: Human Health Risk
Assessment for the Proposed Use on Tuberous and Corm Vegetables, Leafy

Vegetables (including greenhouse-grown lettuce), Brassica Head and Stem
Vegetables, Fruiting Vegetables (including greenhouse-grown pepper and
tomato), Cucurbit Vegetables (including greenhouse-grown cucumber),
Citrus Fruits, Pome Fruits, Stone Fruits, Small Vine Climbing Fruit
(excluding fuzzy kiwifruit), Tree Nuts, Leaf Petiole Vegetables, and
Cotton, and for the Establishment of a Tolerance without a U.S.
Registration for Residues in/on Imported Tea'' on pages 16-24 in docket
ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0971.

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 pyrifluquinazon used
for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.

 Table--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Pyrifluquinazon 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 13-49       NOAEL = 5 mg/kg/day.  Acute RfD = 0.05 mg/ Developmental Toxicity Study (rat)
 years of age).                    UFA = 10X...........   kg/day.             LOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day based on
                                   UFH = 10X...........  aPAD = 0.05 mg/kg/    decreased AGD in males, increased
                                   FQPA SF = 1X........   day.                 incidences of skeletal variations
                                                                               (total), and increased incidences
                                                                               of supernumerary ribs.
Acute dietary (General population  NOAEL = 100 mg/kg/    Acute RfD = 1 mg/kg/ Acute Neurotoxicity Screening
 including infants and children).   day.                  day.                 Battery
                                   UFA = 10X...........  aPAD = 1 mg/kg/day.  LOAEL = 300 mg/kg/day based on
                                   UFH = 10X...........                        increased incidences of clinical
                                   FQPA SF = 1X........                        signs and effects on functional
                                                                               observational parameters,
                                                                               dehydration, decreased motor
                                                                               activity, prostrate, ataxia,
                                                                               hyporeactivity, scant or no
                                                                               feces, hunched posture, lost
                                                                               righting reflex, decreased body
                                                                               temperatures, lacrimation,
                                                                               bradyapnea, piloerection, ptosis,
                                                                               and decreased grip strength),
                                                                               decreased body weights and body-
                                                                               weight gains, decreased food
                                                                               consumption, and decreased brain
                                                                               weights.
Chronic dietary (All populations)  NOAEL= 6.25 mg/kg/    Chronic RfD = 0.06   Carcinogenicity (mouse)
                                    day.                  mg/kg/day.          LOAEL = 27.1/25.0 mg/kg/day (M/F)
                                   UFA = 10X...........  cPAD = 0.06 mg/kg/    based on decreased mean body
                                   UFH = 10X...........   day.                 weight in males; and increased
                                   FQPA SF = 1X........                        incidences of tactile hair loss
                                                                               in males, endometrial hyperplasia
                                                                               of the uterine horn in females,
                                                                               follicular cell hypertrophy of
                                                                               the thyroid in males, and
                                                                               subcapsular cell hyperplasia of
                                                                               the adrenal in males.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation)   Classification: ``Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans at levels that do
                                                       not alter rodent hormone homeostasis.''
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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).
UFDB = to account for the absence of data or other data
deficiency. 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 pyrifluquinazon, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances. EPA assessed dietary exposures from
pyrifluquinazon 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 pyrifluquinazon. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used the
Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity
Intake Database (DEEM-FCID) Version 3.16. This software uses 2003-2008
food consumption data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
(USDA's) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat
in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed
tolerance level residues, default processing factors, and 100 percent
crop treated (PCT) for all proposed uses.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment

EPA used DEEM-FCID, Version 3.16 software with 2003-2008 food
consumption data from the USDA's NHANES/WWEIA. As to residue levels in
food, EPA assumed tolerance level residues, default processing factors,
and 100 PCT for all proposed and registered uses.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that pyrifluquinazon would not pose a cancer risk to humans
at dose levels below the chronic reference dose. Therefore, a separate
dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is
unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the
dietary assessment for pyrifluquinazon. Tolerance-level residues and/or
100% CT were assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening-
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for pyrifluquinazon in drinking water. These simulation
models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/
transport characteristics of pyrifluquinazon. Further information
regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure
assessment can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.
    Based on the Pesticides in Water Calculator (PWC) and Pesticide
Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW), the estimated drinking water
concentrations (EDWCs) of pyrifluquinazon for acute exposures are
estimated to be 7.52 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 10.3
ppb for ground water; for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments
are estimated to be 3.99 ppb for surface water and 9.02 ppb for ground
water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 10.3 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 9.02 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Pyrifluquinazon 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 pyrifluquinazon to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and pyrifluquinazon does not appear
to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
pyrifluquinazon 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 website at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

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. Pyrifluquinazon showed signs
of increased pre- and postnatal quantitative susceptibility in the
developmental toxicity study and in the two-generation reproduction
study in rats. In the rabbit developmental toxicity study, observed
maternal and developmental effects were considered adverse since it is
unknown whether the effects occurred from toxicity to maternal animals
or the fetuses.
    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 pyrifluquinazon is complete.
    ii. Evidence of potential neurotoxicity was observed for
pyrifluquinazon; however, the concern is low since there were no
neuropathological changes in any tissue, clear NOAELs were established
for the observed effects, and the endpoints selected are protective. No
additional UFs were required to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. Although there is evidence of increased quantitative fetal
susceptibility following in utero exposure to pyrifluquinazon in rats
and quantitative postnatal susceptibility in the two-generation
reproduction study, the concern for all observed effects is low
because: (1) The effects are well characterized, (2) clear NOAELs were
established, and (3) risk assessment endpoints used were from the
developmental rat and 2-generation reproduction studies.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100% CT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to pyrifluquinazon in drinking water. These
assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by
pyrifluquinazon.

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 (food plus water) risk for
the U.S. population utilizes 1.2% of the acute population-adjusted dose
(aPAD) and 2.5% for children 1-2 years old, who had the highest
exposure estimate. For females 13 to 49 years old, for which the Agency
used a different endpoint, the acute risk utilized 23% of the aPAD.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded

that chronic risk from pyrifluquinazon in food and water will utilize
13% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population subgroup
receiving the greatest exposure. There are no residential uses for
pyrifluquinazon.
    3. Short- and intermediate-term risk. The Agency's assessment of
short- and intermediate-term risk aggregates short- and intermediate-
term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background exposure level). Short- and
intermediate-term adverse effects were identified; however,
pyrifluquinazon is not registered for any use patterns that would
result in short- or intermediate-term residential exposure. Because
there is no 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- and intermediate-term risk is necessary,
and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating
short- and intermediate-term risk for pyrifluquinazon.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the
information referenced in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that exposure
to pyrifluquinazon is unlikely to cause cancer effects at doses that do
not alter rodent hormone homeostasis. Because the chronic reference
doses is protective of those alterations and the Agency's assessment
concludes that aggregate exposure to pyrifluquinazon does not pose a
chronic risk, EPA has determined that aggregate exposure to
pyrifluquinazon is unlikely to pose a cancer risk to the U.S.
population.
    5. 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 pyrifluquinazon residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology, high-performance liquid
chromatography with tandem mass-spectrometry detection (HPLC-MS/MS) is
available to enforce the tolerance expression for crop commodities. For
livestock commodities, the method used is a modified QuEChERS LC/MS/MS
method. These methods 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 protected].

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. Section
408(b)(4) of the FFDCA specifically requires that EPA determine whether
the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) has established a maximum
residue level (MRL) for the commodity and to explain the reasons for
departing from the Codex level when establishing tolerances at a
different level. 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 also take into account MRLs established by
other countries when determining what tolerance levels to set
domestically.
    The Codex has not established a MRL for residues of
pyrifluquinazon. EPA is establishing the tolerance for residues of
pyrifluquinazon in or on tea to harmonize with Japan.

C. Response to Comments

    EPA received two comments, only one of which was specific to the
petition for pyrifluquinazon tolerances. The specific comment opposed
``allowing such high residues'' but did not provide any information
relevant to the safety of the pesticide. The Agency recognizes that
some individuals believe that pesticides should be banned on
agricultural crops; however, the existing legal framework provided by
section 408 of the FFDCA states that tolerances may be set when persons
seeking such tolerances or exemptions have demonstrated that the
pesticide meets the safety standard imposed by that statute. The
comment appears to be directed at the underlying statute and not EPA's
implementation of it; the citizen has made no contention that EPA has
acted in violation of the statutory framework.

D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    Almost all the tolerances being established in this rule differ
from the petitioner requested in minor ways. For crop subgroups
``vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C,'' ``stone fruits, plum
subgroup 12-12C,'' and crop group ``nut, tree, group 14-12,'' the
appropriate tolerance level (0.02 ppm) is based on the sum of the LOQs
for pyrifluquinazon and metabolite IV-01, rather than on the LOQ for
one analyte (0.01 ppm), as requested. In addition, EPA determined that
a tolerance is needed for residues in or on the processed commodity
citrus dried pulp, so EPA is establishing that tolerance in accordance
with 40 CFR 180.40(f)(1)(i)(A). Based on the dietary burden
calculations and the residue profile in the cattle feeding study, EPA
concluded that tolerances are not needed for pyrifluquinazon residues
of concern in milk, livestock meat, fat, or meat byproducts as expected
secondary residues are less than 1/10th the combined LOQs. However, a
tolerance for livestock liver is needed at the LOQ (pyrifluquinazon,
metabolite IV-01, and metabolite IV-203) corresponding to a tolerance
of 0.04 ppm. The combined LOQs for pyrifluquinazon, metabolite IV-01,
and metabolite IV-203 in parent equivalents corresponded to 0.035 ppm;
therefore, a tolerance of 0.04 ppm is required for the liver of cattle,
goat, horse, and sheep. For the remainder of tolerances being
established, EPA used corrected commodity names, and adjusted
tolerances levels based on available residue data, proportionality
adjustments to the crop field trial data. and correcting for potential
decline during frozen storage, which resulted in increased recommended
tolerances. Finally, EPA notes that although the notice of filing
indicated that the petition requested a tolerance for almond, hulls at
0.01 ppm, the petition itself requested a tolerance at 0.4 ppm.
Nevertheless, based on available residue data, the Agency has
determined that a tolerance of 0.60 ppm is necessary to cover residues
from this use.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of
pyrifluquinazon, (1-acetyl-3,4-dihydro-3-[(3-pyridinylmethyl)amino]-6-
[1,2,2,2-tetrafluoro-1-(trifluoromethyl)ethyl]-2(1H)-quinazolinone),
and its metabolites in or on Almond, hulls at 0.60 ppm; Cherry subgroup
12-12A at 0.30 ppm; Citrus, dried pulp at 2.0 ppm; Citrus, oil at 30
ppm; Cotton, gin byproducts at 6.0 ppm; Cotton, undelinted seed at 0.30
ppm; Fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 0.70 ppm; Fruit, pome, group 11-10
at 0.07 ppm; Fruit small vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit,
subgroup 13-07F at 0.30 ppm; Leaf petiole vegetable, subgroup 22B at
1.5 ppm; Peach subgroup 12-12B at 0.04 ppm; Plum subgroup 12-12C at
0.02 ppm; Nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.02 ppm; Tea, dried at 20 ppm;
Vegetable,

brassica, head and stem, group 5-16 at 0.60 ppm; Vegetable, cucurbit,
group 9 at 0.07 ppm; Vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10 at 0.30 ppm;
Vegetable, leafy, group 4-16 at 5.0 ppm; Vegetable, tuberous and corm,
subgroup 1C at 0.02 ppm; Cattle, liver at 0.04 ppm; Goat, liver at 0.04
ppm; Horse, liver at 0.04 ppm; and Sheep, liver at 0.04 ppm. For the
plant commodities, compliance with the tolerance is determined by
measuring residues of the parent compound and the IV-01 metabolite; for
the livestock commodities, compliance is determined by measuring
residues of the parent compound and the free and conjugated forms of
IV-01 and IV-203 metabolites.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action 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 action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); or Executive Order 13771,
entitled ``Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs'' (82
FR 9339, February 3, 2017). This action does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: November 9, 2018.
Michael Goodis,
Director, Registration Division, 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. Add Sec.  180.701 to subpart C to read as follows:

Sec.  180.701  Pyrifluquinazon; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. (1) Tolerances are established for residues of the
insecticide pyrifluquinazon, including its metabolites and degradates,
in or on the commodities in the table below. Compliance with the
tolerance levels specified below is to be determined by measuring only
the sum of pyrifluquinazon (1-acetyl-3,4-dihydro-3-[(3-
pyridinylmethyl)amino]-6-[1,2,2,2-tetrafluoro-1-
(trifluoromethyl)ethyl]-2(1H)-quinazolinone) and its metabolite IV-01
(3-[(pyridin-3-ylmethyl)amino]-6-[1,2,2,2-tetrafluoro-1-
(trifluoromethyl)ethyl]-3,4-dihydro-1H-quinazolin-2-one), calculated as
the stoichiometric equivalent of pyrifluquinazon.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Parts per
                          Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almond, hulls...............................................        0.60
Cherry subgroup 12-12A......................................        0.30
Citrus, dried pulp..........................................         2.0
Citrus, oil.................................................          30
Cotton, gin byproducts......................................         6.0
Cotton, undelinted seed.....................................        0.30
Fruit, citrus, group 10-10..................................        0.70
Fruit, pome, group 11-10....................................        0.07
Fruit, small vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup        0.30
 13-07F.....................................................
Leaf petiole vegetable, subgroup 22B........................         1.5
Peach subgroup 12-12B.......................................        0.04
Plum subgroup 12-12C........................................        0.02
Nut, tree, group 14-12......................................        0.02
Tea, dried\1\...............................................          20
Vegetable, brassica, head and stem, group 5-16..............        0.60
Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9................................        0.07
Vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10.............................        0.30
Vegetable, leafy, group 4-16................................         5.0
Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C...................        0.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no U.S. registrations as of November 26, 2018 for use on
  tea.

    (2) Tolerances are established for residues of the insecticide
pyrifluquinazon, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the
commodities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance levels
specified below is to be determined by measuring only the sum of
pyrifluquinazon (1-acetyl-3,4-dihydro-3-[(3-pyridinylmethyl)amino]-6-
[1,2,2,2-tetrafluoro-1-(trifluoromethyl)ethyl]-2(1H)-quinazolinone) and
the free and conjugated forms of its metabolites IV-01 (3-[(pyridin-3-
ylmethyl)amino]-6-[1,2,2,2-tetrafluoro-1-(trifluoromethyl)ethyl]-3,4-
dihydro-1H-quinazolin-2-one) and IV-203 (6-[1,2,2,2-tetrafluoro-1-
trifluoromethyl)ethyl]-1H-quinazolin-2,4-dione), calculated as the
stoichiometric equivalent of pyrifluquinazon.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Parts per
                          Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cattle, liver...............................................        0.04
Goat, liver.................................................        0.04
Horse, liver................................................        0.04
Sheep, liver................................................        0.04
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]
    (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. [Reserved]
    (d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 2018-25690 Filed 11-23-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P