[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 107 (Friday, June 3, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35641-35643]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13161]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[EPA-R09-RCRA-2015-0822; FRL-9947-28-Region 9]

Nevada: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA received several comments during the open comment period
on the March 23, 2016, proposed rule to authorize Nevada's changes to
the State Hazardous Waste Management program. EPA is responding to one
comment opposing the action and reaffirming the effective date of the
direct final rule as June 6, 2016.

DATES: The final authorization is effective June 6, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurie Amaro, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street LND-1-1, San Francisco,
CA 94105<EMAIL_ADDRESS>415-972-3364.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. What decisions has EPA made in this rule?

    On November 25, 2015, and December 28, 2015, Nevada submitted final
complete program revision applications seeking authorization of changes
to its hazardous waste program that correspond to certain federal rules
promulgated between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2008, (also known as
RCRA Clusters XVI through XVIII). EPA concludes that Nevada's
application to revise its authorized program meets all of the statutory
and regulatory requirements established by RCRA, as set forth in RCRA
section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), and 40 CFR part 271. Therefore, EPA
grants Nevada final authorization to operate as part of its hazardous
waste program the changes listed in Section G of the direct final rule
(81 FR 15440), as further described in the authorization application.
    Nevada has responsibility for permitting treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities within its borders (except in Indian country) and
for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its
revised program application. New federal requirements and prohibitions
imposed by federal regulations that EPA promulgates pursuant to the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 take effect in authorized
states at the same time that they take effect in unauthorized states.
Thus, EPA will implement those requirements and prohibitions in Nevada,
including the issuance of new permits implementing those requirements,
until the State is granted authorization to do so.

B. What is the effect of today's authorization decision?

    The effect of this decision is that the changes described in
Nevada's authorization application will become part of the authorized
state hazardous waste program and therefore will be federally
enforceable. Nevada will continue to have primary enforcement authority
and responsibility for its state hazardous waste program. EPA retains
its authorities under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003,
including its authority to:
     Conduct inspections, and require monitoring, tests,
analyses or reports;
     Enforce RCRA requirements, including authorized state
program requirements, and suspend or revoke permits; and
     Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the state
has taken its own actions.
    This action does not impose additional requirements on the
regulated community because the regulations for which Nevada is being
authorized by today's action are already effective and are not changed
by today's action.

C. What were the comments on EPA's proposal and what is EPA's response?

    On March 23, 2016, EPA published a proposed rule (81 FR 15497) and
a direct final rule (81 FR 15440) to authorize Nevada's November 25 and
December 28, 2015, applications to make revisions to Nevada's State
Hazardous Waste Management program that correspond to certain federal
rules promulgated between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2008 (also known
as RCRA Clusters XVI through XVIII). EPA stated that if adverse
comments were received by May 9, 2016, the rule would be withdrawn and
not take effect. On May 9, 2016, EPA received a comment opposing
approval; however, due to the reasons explained below, EPA is not
withdrawing the direct final rule but rather is responding to the
comment and reaffirming the effective date of June 6, 2016, of the
rule, pursuant to 40 CFR 271.21(b)(3)(iii)(B).
    EPA received four comments on the proposed rule, Nevada: Final
Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions.
Three comments stated, ``Good'' and do not require a response. The
fourth comment stated, ``Instead of not authorizing Nevada's antifreeze
recycling program (and in the process violate 271.1(h), the partial
authorization prohibition) EPA should instead require the program to be
amended so it is no less stringent than EPAs [sic] requirements. This
has been wrong since 2009!''
    The State of Nevada adopted regulations for the ``Recycling of Used
Antifreeze'' effective October 3, 1996, at NAC 444.8801-9071. These
regulations are applicable to those categories of antifreeze that are
recycled and have been determined to be hazardous waste because they
either exhibit a characteristic of hazardous waste (i.e., the toxicity
characteristic) or they are a listed hazardous waste in the state of
their origin, for those categories of antifreeze entering Nevada from
another State (NAC 444.8871). Under the Federal code, spent antifreeze
destined to be recycled, as defined by Nevada, would be subject to the
requirements of 40 CFR 261.6(b)-(d) ``Requirements for Recyclable
Materials.'' In the Nevada regulations at NAC 444.8801-9071, spent
antifreeze that is recycled is not regulated as universal waste, but is
subject to requirements that are less stringent than the Federal
regulations at 40 CFR 261.6(b)-(d). Accordingly, EPA cannot authorize
Nevada's regulations specific to the recycling of used antifreeze.
    However, Nevada has incorporated the federal regulations contained
in 40

CFR 261.6(b)-(d) at NAC 444.8632. The purpose of EPA's notice in the
Federal Register is to direct generators and recyclers of used
antifreeze to comply with 40 CFR 261.1(b)-(d) as incorporated by
reference in NAC 444.8632, rather than the antifreeze-specific
provisions at NAC 444.8801-9071. Because Nevada's authorized program
regulates used antifreeze recycling at NAC 444.8632 in a program that
is no less stringent than the federal requirements, there is no gap in
coverage of used antifreeze recycling that could be considered a
partial authorization, and EPA is not running afoul of the requirement
contained in 40 CFR 271.1(h). Additionally, as noted in the guidance
document, Clarification of EPA Policy on Authorizing Incomplete or Late
``Clusters'' Under 40 CFR 271.21 and Availability of Public Information
under RCRA Section 3006(f), Nov. 6, 1992,

    There is regulatory history [relevant to 40 CFR 271.1(h)] which
supports our interpretation that the prohibition on partial programs
means States are prohibited from implementing RCRA programs that
address only part of the universe of waste handlers, e.g.,
``generators'', ``transporters'', ``treatment, storage and disposal
facilities''. This prohibition, therefore, would not be relevant to
the great majority of program revisions, since any State program
that has obtained initial authorization already addresses the full
universe of waste handlers.

The prohibition contained in 40 CFR 271.1(h) therefore does not apply
to this authorization decision. Nevada obtained initial authorization
of its hazardous waste management program on August 19, 1985, effective
November 1, 1985 (50 FR 42181), and Nevada's federally authorized
program covers the full universe of waste handlers. Accordingly, EPA
affirms that the immediate final decision takes effect on June 6, 2016,
as described in the direct final rule, Nevada: Final Authorization of
State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions.

D. Administrative Requirements

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this action
from the requirements of Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October
4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). Therefore this
action is not subject to review by OMB. This action authorizes state
requirements for the purpose of RCRA section 3006 and imposes no
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly,
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this action authorizes
pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does
not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect
small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538). For the same reason, this action also does
not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of tribal
governments, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000). This action will not have substantial direct effects
on the states, on the relationship between the national government and
the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely authorizes state
requirements as part of the state RCRA hazardous waste program without
altering the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established by RCRA. This action also is not subject
to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is
not economically significant and it does not make decisions based on
environmental health or safety risks. This rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.
    Under RCRA section 3006(b), EPA grants a state's application for
authorization as long as the state meets the criteria required by RCRA.
It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it
reviews a state authorization application, to require the use of any
particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard
that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required
by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996),
in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate
drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and
provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied
with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining
the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney
General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and
Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the executive order.
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.). ``Burden'' is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on
environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to
the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make
environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the
United States. Because this rule authorizes pre-existing state rules
which are at least equivalent to, and no less stringent than existing
federal requirements, and imposes no additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law, and there are no anticipated significant
adverse human health or environmental effects, the rule is not subject
to Executive Order 12898.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801-808, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule
must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each
House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States. EPA will submit a report containing this document 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 in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect
until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This
action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). However,
this action is effective 75 days after the date of initial publication
in the Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste
transportation, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority:  This action is issued under the authority of
sections 2002(a), 3006, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, and 6974(b).

    Dated: May 26, 2016.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9.
[FR Doc. 2016-13161 Filed 6-2-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 147 (Wednesday, July 31, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46267-46274]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18420]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0304; FRL-9393-5]

Trifluralin; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of
trifluralin in or on the oilseed crop group 20. Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested this tolerance under the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective July 31, 2013. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before September 30, 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-2012-0304, 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<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: Lois Rossi, 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://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-2012-0304 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
September 30, 2013. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0304, 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.htm.

Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of July 25, 2012 (77 FR 43562) (FRL-9353-
6), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
2E8011) by IR-4, 500 College Road East, Suite 201W., Princeton, NJ
08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.207 be amended by
establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide trifluralin,
(alpha, alpha, alpha-trifluoro-2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-p-toluidine),
in or on oilseed, crop group 20 at 0.05 parts per million (ppm). That
document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Dow
AgroSciences, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the
notice of filing.

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 trifluralin including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with trifluralin 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 kidney and the liver are the principal target organs for
trifluralin in rats and dogs. In subchronic oral studies liver effects
include increased liver weights and changes in clinical chemistry
parameters. Kidney effects include decreased kidney weights, kidney and
bladder tumors, increased blood urea nitrogen (BUN), increases in total
protein, aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and lactate dehydrogenase
(LDH) in the urine. Also, protein electrophoresis of urine samples
showed [alpha]1-globulin and [alpha]2-globulin. Kidney effects also
included tubular hyaline casts, minimal cortical tubular

epithelial regeneration, observed microscopically, and an increased
incidence of progressive glomerulo-nephritis. In dogs exposed to
trifluralin for 1 year, multifocal cortical tubular cytoplasmic pigment
deposition was noted in the kidneys of both sexes. In the subchronic
studies, blood effects such as lower hemoglobin levels and changes in
clinical chemistry were reported in rats.
    There was qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility in the
rat developmental toxicity study, where fetal developmental effects
(increased resorptions and wavy ribs) occurred in the presence of less
severe maternal effects (decreases in body weight gain, clinical signs,
and changes in organ weights). Also qualitatively, there is an
indication of increased sensitivity in the 2-generation reproduction
study in the rat in that offspring effects (decreased fetal, neonatal
and litter viability) were observed at a dose level where there was
less severe maternal toxicity (decreased body weight, body weight gain
and food consumption).
    In male rats, trifluralin was associated with increased incidence
of thyroid follicular cell combined adenoma, papillary adenoma,
cystadenoma, and carcinoma tumors. Based on the available data,
trifluralin has been classified as a possible human carcinogen.
Extensive testing showed, however, that trifluralin is neither
mutagenic nor genotoxic, and does not inhibit the polymerization of
microtubules in mammalian cells. It is also not a neurotoxicant and
does not appear to be an immunotoxicant.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by trifluralin 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 ``Trifluralin: Human Health
Risk Assessment for the Establishment of Tolerances on Oilseed Crop
Group 20'' pages 43-55 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0304.

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 trifluralin used for
human risk assessment is shown in the following Table.

  Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Trifluralin 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 = 100 mg/kg/    Acute RfD = 1.0 mg/  Developmental Toxicity Study Rat.
 years of age).                     day.                  kg/day.             LOAEL = 500 mg/kg/day, based on
                                   UFA = 10x...........  aPAD = 1.0 mg/kg/     reduced ossification of the
                                   UFH = 10x...........   day.                 vertebrae and ribs; thickened,
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........                        wavy or bent ribs; and increased
                                                                               total litter resorptions.
                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (General population    No endpoints identified from the available developmental toxicity studies
 including infants and children).       (rat and rabbit) were appropriate for an acute dietary assessment for
                                       trifluralin in the general population, including infants and children.
                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary (All populations)  NOAEL= 2.4 mg/kg/day  Chronic RfD = 0.024  Chronic (capsule) Toxicity--Dog.
                                   UFA = 10x...........   mg/kg/day.          LOAEL = 40 mg/kg/day, based on
                                   UFH = 10x...........  cPAD = 0.024 mg/kg/   increased frequency of abnormal
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........   day.                 stool, decreased body weights and
                                                                               body weight gains, and decreased
                                                                               erythrocytes and hemoglobin and
                                                                               increased thrombocytes (males).
Incidental oral short-term (1 to   NOAEL= 10 mg/kg/day.  LOC for MOE = 100..  2-generation Reproduction Study in
 30 days).                         UFA = 10x...........                        Rats.
                                   UFH = 10x...........                       LOAEL = 32.5 mg/kg/day, based on
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........                        decreased pup weights in both
                                                                               generations and increased
                                                                               relative to body liver weights in
                                                                               the F2b females.
Inhalation short-term (1 to 30     Inhalation study      LOC for MOE = 100..  30-Day Inhalation Study--Rat.
 days).                             NOAEL = 300 mg/kg/                        LOAEL = 1000 mg/m\3\ (270 mg/kg/
                                    day (inhalation                            day), based on increased
                                    absorption rate =                          methemoglobin and bilirubin in
                                    100%).                                     females and the incidence of
                                   UFA = 10x...........                        dyspnea and rufflerd fur in males
                                   UFH = 10x...........                        and females.
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........
                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation)   Classification: Possible Human Carcinogen Q1 \*\ = 2.96 x 10-3 (mg/kg/day)-1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level
  of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-
  level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor.
  UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among
  members of the human population (intraspecies).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to trifluralin, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing trifluralin tolerances in 40 CFR
180.207. EPA assessed dietary exposures from trifluralin 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 trifluralin. In estimating acute
dietary exposure, EPA used 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 conducted an unrefined assessment using
tolerance level residues, 100 percent crop treated (PCT), and default
Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM) processing factors.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used 2003-2008 food consumption data from the USDA's
NHANES/WWEIA. As to residue levels in food, the chronic dietary
exposure and risk estimates are somewhat refined and assumed tolerance
level residues, PCT data for some existing uses, and DEEM default
processing factors. Pesticide Data Program (PDP) monitoring data were
used for carrot, orange, orange juice, pepper, potato, and tomato.
    iii. Cancer. EPA determines whether quantitative cancer exposure
and risk assessments are appropriate for a food-use pesticide based on
the weight of the evidence from cancer studies and other relevant data.
If quantitative cancer risk assessment is appropriate, cancer risk may
be quantified using a linear or nonlinear approach. If sufficient
information on the carcinogenic mode of action is available, a
threshold or nonlinear approach is used and a cancer RfD is calculated
based on an earlier noncancer key event. If carcinogenic mode of action
data are not available, or if the mode of action data determines a
mutagenic mode of action, a default linear cancer slope factor approach
is utilized. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that trifluralin should be classified as a possible human
carcinogen and a linear approach has been used to quantify cancer risk
since no mode of action data are available.
    The aggregate cancer risk assessment for the general U.S.
population takes into account exposure estimates from dietary
consumption of trifluralin from food, residential and drinking water
sources. Exposures from residential uses are based on the lifetime
average daily dose and assume an exposure period of 5 days per year and
50 years of exposure in a lifetime. Dietary exposure assumptions were
quantified using the same 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.
    Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data
on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary
risk only if:
     Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a
valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop
is likely to contain the pesticide residue.
     Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group.
     Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food
consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not
understate exposure for the population in such area.

In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any
estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate
of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require
registrants to submit data on PCT.
    The Agency estimated the average PCT for existing uses as follows:
    Almonds: 1%; asparagus: 20%; barley: 1%; green bean: 25%; broccoli:
10%; cabbage: 40%; canola: 2.5%; cantaloupe: 25%; carrot: 40%;
cauliflower: 10%; celery: 2.5%; corn: 1%; cotton: 30%; cucumber: 2.5%;
dry bean/pea: 10%; garlic: 5%; grapefruit: 1%; grape: 2.5%; honeydew:
20%; lemon: 1%; onion: 2.5%; orange: 1%; peach: 1%; peanut: 5%; pecan:
1%; pepper: 25%; pistachio: 2.5%; potato: 2.5%; pumpkin: 5%; sorghum:
1%; soybean: 5%; squash: 5%; sugarbeet: 2.5%; sugarcane: 5%; sunflower:
10%; tomato: 60%; walnut: 1%; watermelon: 10%; and wheat: 1%.
    In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States
Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service
(USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and the National Pesticide Use
Database for the chemical/crop combination for the most recent 6-7
years. EPA uses an average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis. The
average PCT figure for each existing use is derived by combining
available public and private market survey data for that use, averaging
across all observations, and rounding to the nearest 5%, except for
those situations in which the average PCT is less than one. In those
cases, 1% is used as the average PCT and 2.5% is used as the maximum
PCT. EPA uses a maximum PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The

maximum PCT figure is the highest observed maximum value reported
within the recent 6 years of available public and private market survey
data for the existing use and rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5%.
    The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit
III.C.1.iv. have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates
are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are
reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that
the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an
underestimation. As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption
information and consumption information for significant subpopulations
is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating
the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional
groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment
process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency
to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to
residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than
the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does
not have available reliable information on the regional consumption of
food to which trifluralin may be applied in a particular area.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for trifluralin in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of trifluralin. 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) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of
trifluralin and its major degradates TR-4 ([alpha],[alpha],[alpha]-
trifluoro-5-nitro-N4,N4-dipropyl-toluene-3,4-diamine), TR-6 (5-
trifluoromethyl-3-nitro-1,2-benzenediamine) and TR-15 (2-ethyl-7-nitro-
5-(trifluoromethyl) benzimidazole) (the residues of concern in drinking
water) for acute exposures are estimated to be 23.83 parts per billion
(ppb) for surface water and 0.0275 ppb for ground water. For chronic
exposures for non-cancer assessments they are estimated to be 1.97 ppb
for surface water and 0.0275 ppb for ground water. And for cancer
assessments are estimated to be 1.59 ppb for surface water and 0.0275
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 23.83 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 1.97 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water. And for cancer dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 1.59 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).
    Trifluralin is currently registered for the following uses that
could result in residential exposures including vegetable gardens,
turf, and ornamentals. EPA assessed residential exposure using the
following assumptions: EPA evaluated residential handler inhalation
exposures, which are considered short-term in duration. The handler
assessment did not consider dermal exposures because a dermal endpoint
was not identified; in three dermal toxicity studies (21/28 days in
rabbits; 21/28 days in rats; and 31-days in rats), trifluralin was
tested up to the limit dose (1000 mg/kg/day) and caused no systemic
toxicity. Handler exposure scenarios evaluated include the following:
     Loading/applying granulars with a push-type spreader;
     loading/applying granulars using a spoon, measuring scoop,
shaker can, or via hand;
     mixing/loading/applying liquids with a hose-end sprayer;
     mixing/loading/applying liquids with low pressure handwand
sprayer;
     mixing/loading/applying liquids with backpack sprayer; and
applying trifluralin impregnated fabric squares to soil.
    In terms of cancer risk, the Agency considers all exposure to
trifluralin, including the dermal and inhalation exposure expected for
homeowners, to have an associated carcinogenic risk. Carcinogenic risk
for homeowner applicators was assessed based on the application methods
outlined above. An upper-end assumption was made that the users
assessed will apply trifluralin each season, as labeled, with an
assumed exposure period of 5 days per year for 50 years of their life.
Specific methods (or scenarios) of application (spreader, sprayer,
etc.) were assessed to demonstrate the full range of exposure due to
method and area treated, although users are not expected to use one
method for 50 years. Carcinogenic risk for homeowner applicators was
assessed by combining dermal exposure (adjusted for an estimated 3%
absorption based on ethalfluralin data) and inhalation exposure (100%
absorption), calculating this exposure on a per day basis (``Lifetime
Average Daily Dose'', in mg/kg/day), and then quantifying risk by
multiplying the updated upper-bound carcinogenic potency factor
(Q1*) of 2.96 x 10-3 (mg/kg/day)-1 by
the combined exposure estimate.
    There is the potential for post-application exposure for
individuals exposed as a result of being in an environment (vegetable
garden, golf course turf, turf) that has been previously treated with
trifluralin. All residential exposures are considered to be short-term
in duration (1-30 days). No acute dietary or short-term dermal points
of departure have been selected for trifluralin; therefore; only
incidental oral post-application non-cancer risk estimates for children
1<2 years old were evaluated. This lifestage is not the only lifestage
that could be potentially exposed for these post-application scenarios;
however, the assessment of this lifestage is health protective for the
exposures and risk estimates for any other potentially exposed
lifestage. Non-cancer post-application scenarios assessed are as
follows: Incidental oral (hand to mouth, object to mouth, and soil
ingestion) exposure from granular applications to turf.
    Estimated post-application cancer risk for the general U.S.
population includes infants and children; therefore, in accordance with
Agency policy, a children's cancer risk estimate was not reported
separately. For post-application cancer risk, the only adult post-
application residential scenarios that are applicable are the
following:
     Dermal exposure to residues on lawns
     Dermal exposure to golf course turf
     Dermal exposure in home vegetable gardens.
    There may be post-application residential exposure scenarios for
trifluralin which could be combined for purposes of an aggregate
exposure assessment. Combinations for residential exposure scenarios
should have a reasonable probability of occurring on a single day and
the pest that an individual is attempting to

control must be considered. It is reasonable that an adult may treat
their turf and garden on the same day.
    The worst case residential exposure for use in the adult non-cancer
aggregate assessment reflects residential handler inhalation exposure
from applying granules by hand to pre-plant ornamentals.
    The worst case residential exposure for use in the children 1<2
years old non-cancer aggregate assessment reflects hand-to-mouth short-
term post-application exposures from granular application to
residential turf.
    And lastly, the worst case residential exposure for use in the
cancer aggregate assessment reflects dermal and inhalation exposure
from loading/applying granules with a belly grinder to pre-plant
ornamentals.
    Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic
inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac/science/trac6a05.pdf.
    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 trifluralin to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and trifluralin does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
trifluralin does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There was qualitative
evidence of increased susceptibility in the rat developmental toxicity
study, where fetal developmental effects (increased resorptions and
wavy ribs) occurred in the presence of less severe maternal effects
(decreases in body weight gain, clinical signs, and changes in organ
weights). Also qualitatively, there is an indication of increased
sensitivity in the 2-generation reproduction study in the rat in that
offspring effects (decreased fetal, neonatal and litter viability) were
observed at a dose level where there was less severe maternal toxicity
(decreased body weight, body weight gain and food consumption).
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that the safety of infants and
children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced to
1X. This determination is based on the following findings:
    i. The toxicity database for trifluralin is complete except for
immunotoxicity testing. In the absence of specific immunotoxicity
studies, EPA has evaluated the available trifluralin toxicity data to
determine whether an additional uncertainty factor is needed to account
or potential immunotoxicity. There are no indications in the available
studies that organs associated with immune function, such as the
thymus, are affected by trifluralin and trifluralin 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 above considerations in this unit, EPA does
not believe that conducting the immunotoxicity study will result in a
dose less than the point of departure already used in this risk
assessment, and an additional database uncertainty factor (UF) for
potential immunotoxicity does not need to be applied.
    ii. There is no indication that trifluralin is a neurotoxic
chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study
or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. Although qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility was
seen in the rat developmental toxicity study, and an indication of
increased sensitivity in the 2-generation reproduction study in the rat
in that offspring effects, the concern for these effects is low for the
following reasons: (1) The dose response was well characterized; (2)
the developmental effects were seen in the presence of maternal
toxicity; (3) clear NOAELs/LOAELs were established for maternal and
developmental toxicities; and (4) for the rats in the 2-generation
reproduction study, the effects were seen at a high-dose level (295
milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day) for males and 337 mg/kg/day for
females). Furthermore, offspring viability was not adversely affected
in the two other 2-generation studies with trifluralin at dose levels
up to 100 and 148 mg/kg/day. Finally, there are no residual
uncertainties for pre-natal and post-natal toxicity since the doses
selected for overall risk assessment are protective of the effects seen
in these studies.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The acute dietary food exposure assessment for females 13-
49, the population identified as having potential acute exposure, was
performed based on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. The chronic
dietary exposure and risk estimates are somewhat refined and assumed
tolerance level residues, some PCT data, and DEEM default processing
factors. Pesticide Data Program (PDP) monitoring data were used for
carrot, orange, orange juice, pepper, potato, and tomato. These
refinements are based on reliable data and will not underestimate the
exposure and risk to any population subgroups. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to trifluralin in drinking water. EPA used similarly
conservative assumptions to assess post-application incidental oral
exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the
exposure and risks posed by trifluralin.

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 population adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic population adjusted
dose (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime
probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure.
Short-, intermediate-term, 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 trifluralin will occupy less than 1% of the aPAD for females 13-49
years old,

the only population subgroup of concern.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
trifluralin from food and water will utilize less than 1% of the cPAD
for all population groups. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3.,
regarding residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to
residues of trifluralin 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).
    Trifluralin 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
with short-term residential exposures to trifluralin.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water,
and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 25,000 for adults
and 26,000 for children. Because EPA's level of concern for trifluralin
is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level).
    An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however,
trifluralin is not registered for any use patterns that would result in
intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term risk is
assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term residential
exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under
the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as
the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no further assessment
of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic
dietary risk assessment for evaluating intermediate-term risk for
trifluralin.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. The aggregate cancer
risk estimate from trifluralin residues in food, drinking water, and
residential exposure is 1 x 10-6. EPA generally considers
cancer risks (expressed as the probability of an increased cancer case)
in the range of 1 in 1 million (or 1 x 10-6) or less to be
negligible.
    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 trifluralin residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (gas chromatography (GC) with
electron capture detection (ECD)) is available to enforce the tolerance
expression.
    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established a MRL for trifluralin for the crops
addressed in this document.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    PA has revised the tolerance expression to clarify (1) that, as
provided in FFDCA section 408(a)(3), the tolerance covers metabolites
and degradates of trifluralin not specifically mentioned; and (2) that
compliance with the specified tolerance levels is to be determined by
measuring only the specific compounds mentioned in the tolerance
expression.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of trifluralin,
including its metabolites and degradates, in or on oilseed, crop group
20 at 0.05 ppm. Compliance with the tolerance level is to be determined
by only trifluralin [alpha],[alpha],[alpha]-trifluoro-2,6-dinitro-N,N-
dipropyl-p-toluidine, in or on the oilseed, crop group 20.
    Also, due to the establishment of the tolerance on oilseed, crop
group 20, the existing tolerances for rapeseed, seed; flax, seed;
mustard, seed; sunflower, seed; safflower, seed; and cotton undelinted
seed are removed as unnecessary.

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: July 25, 2013.
Lois Rossi,
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. In Sec.  180.207:
0
a. Revise the introductory text of paragraph (a).
0
b. Remove the commodities cotton undelinted seed; flax, seed; mustard,
seed; rapeseed, seed; safflower, seed; and sunflower, seed in the table
in paragraph (a).
0
c. Add alphabetically the following commodity to the table in paragraph
(a).
    The amendment read as follows:

Sec.  180.207  Trifluralin; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of
trifluralin, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the
commodities in the following table. Compliance with the tolerance
levels specified in the following table is to be determined by only
trifluralin [alpha],[alpha],[alpha]-trifluoro-2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-
p-toluidine, in or on the commodity.

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

                                * * * * *
Oilseed, crop group 20......................................        0.05

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-18420 Filed 7-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35372-35373]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14357]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER12-1924-000]

EverPower Commercial Services LLC; Supplemental Notice That
Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section
204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
EverPower Commercial Services LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to

intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is June 27, 2012.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the web site that enables subscribers to receive 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>.

    Dated: June 7, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-14357 Filed 6-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 17, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8109-8110]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03127]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77103; File No. SR-FINRA-2015-029]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for
Commission Action on Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or
Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt FINRA Rule 3210 (Accounts at
Other Broker-Dealers and Financial Institutions), as Modified by
Partial Amendment No. 1, in the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook

February 10, 2016.
    On July 31, 2015, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to adopt a new, consolidated rule
addressing accounts opened or established by associated persons of
members at firms other than the firm with which they are associated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on August 14, 2015.\3\ The Commission received four comment
letters in response to the proposal.\4\ On November 10, 2015, FINRA
responded to the comments and filed Partial Amendment No. 1 to the
existing proposal.\5\ On November 12, 2015, the Commission issued an
order instituting proceedings pursuant to Exchange Act section
19(b)(2)(B) \6\ to determine whether to approve or disapprove the
proposed rule change, as modified by Partial Amendment No. 1. The order
was published in the Federal Register on November 18, 2015.\7\ The
Commission received one (1) comment letter in response to the Order
Instituting Proceedings.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Exchange Act Rel. No. 75655 (Aug. 10, 2015), 80 FR 48941
(Aug. 14, 2015). The comment period closed on September 4, 2015.
    \4\ See Letters from Eric Arnold and Clifford Kirsch, Sutherland
Asbill & Brennan LLP (for the Committee of Annuity Insurers), dated
September 4, 2015; Michael J. Hogan, President and Chief Executive
Officer, FOLIOfn Investments, Inc., dated September 4, 2015; Joseph
C. Peiffer, President, Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association,
dated September 3, 2015; and Kevin Zambrowicz, Associate General
Counsel & Managing Director, and Stephen Vogt, Assistant Vice
President & Assistant General Counsel, Securities Industry and
Financial Markets Association, dated September 3, 2015. Comment
letters are available at www.sec.gov.
    \5\ See Letter from Patrice Gliniecki, Senior Vice President and
Deputy General Counsel, FINRA, to the Commission, dated November 10,
2015. FINRA's letter and text of Partial Amendment No. 1 are
available on FINRA's Web site at http://www.finra.org, at the
principal office of FINRA, and at the Commission's Public Reference
Room.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B) (if the Commission does not approve
or disapprove a proposed rule change under Exchange Act section
19(b)(2)(A) (i.e., within 90 days of publication of notice of the
filing of the proposed rule change in the Federal Register (the
``Publication Date'')), the Commission shall institute proceedings
to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule
change (``Proceedings'')).
    \7\ See Exchange Act Release No. 76430 (Nov. 12, 2015), 80 FR
72118 (Nov. 18, 2015) (Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine
Whether To Approve or Disapprove Proposed Rule Change to Adopt FINRA
Rule 3210 (Accounts at Other Broker-Dealers and Financial
Institutions), as Modified by Partial Amendment No. 1) (``Order
Instituting Proceedings''). The comment period closed on December 9,
2015.
    \8\ See Letter from Laura Crosby-Brown, dated November 13, 2015.
Comment letters are available at www.sec.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Exchange Act section 19(b)(2)(B)(ii)(I) \9\ provides that the
Commission shall approve or disapprove a proposed rule change in
Proceedings within 180 days after the Publication Date, or within a
longer period up to 240 days after the Publication Date if: (1) The
Commission determines that a longer period is appropriate and publishes
the reasons for so determining,\10\ or (2) the applicable self-
regulatory organization consents to the extension.\11\ The 180th day
for this filing (File Number SR-FINRA-2015-029) is February 10, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B)(ii)(I).
    \10\ Exchange Act section 19(b)(2)(B)(ii)(II)(aa), 15 U.S.C.
78s(b)(2)(B)(ii)(II)(aa).
    \11\ Exchange Act section 19(b)(2)(B)(ii)(II)(bb), 15 U.S.C.
78s(b)(2)(B)(ii)(II)(bb).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is extending this 180-day time period. The
Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the

proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the
proposed rule change, as amended by Partial Amendment No.1, comment
letters, and FINRA's submission. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant
to Exchange Act section 19(b)(2), designates April 8, 2016, as the date
by which the Commission shall approve or disapprove the proposed rule
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
change.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-03127 Filed 2-16-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: July 27, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 142)]
[Notices]
[Page 37077-37079]
[DOCID:fr27jy09-91]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60348; File No. SR-FINRA-2009-019]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Adopt FINRA
Rules 1010 (Electronic Filing Requirements for Uniform Forms) and 2263
(Arbitration Disclosure to Associated Persons Signing or Acknowledging
Form U4) in the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook

July 20, 2009.

I. Introduction

    On April 7, 2009, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') (f/k/a ``NASD'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to adopt, subject to certain
amendments, NASD Rule 1140 (Electronic Filing Rules) as new FINRA Rule
1010 (Electronic Filing Requirements for Uniform Forms) and NASD Rule
3080 (Disclosure to Associated Persons When Signing Form U-4) as new
FINRA Rule 2263 (Arbitration Disclosure to Associated Persons Signing
or Acknowledging Form U4) in the consolidated FINRA rulebook. The
proposal was published for comment in the Federal Register on April 24,
2009.\3\ The Commission received one comment letter, on May 15, 2009,
on the proposal.\4\ FINRA responded to the commenter on July 8,
2009.\5\ This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59784 (April 17,
2009), 74 FR 18779 (April 24, 2009) (``Notice'').
    \4\ See letter to Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary,
Commission, from Bari Havlik, Senior Vice President and Chief
Compliance Officer, Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., dated May 15, 2009
(``Schwab Letter'').
    \5\ See letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from Patricia Albrecht, Assistant General Counsel, FINRA, dated July
8, 2009 (``Response Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

Proposed FINRA Rule 1010

    NASD's Rule 1140 specifies that an electronic initial and transfer
Form U4 must be based on a signed Form U4, but the rule does not
expressly state that the signatures must be manual. The proposed rule
would require that every initial Form U4 and every Form U4 filed to
transfer a registered person's association from one firm to another
firm be based on an original, manually-signed Form U4 provided to the
member by the person on whose behalf the Form U4 is being filed.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Member firms use the Central Registration Depository (CRD),
a Web based system, to submit the form on behalf of the associated
person by typing the person's name into the signature box on the
electronic form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change also modifies the signature requirement
with respect to amendments to disclosure information in the Form U4.
NASD's Rule 1140 requires the associated person on whose behalf the
filing is made to sign amendments to Form U4 that provide disclosure
information. Proposed FINRA Rule 1010 would permit a firm to file
amendments to the Form U4 disclosure information without obtaining the
registered person's manual signature if the firm uses reasonable
efforts to i) provide the registered person with a copy of the amended
disclosure information before filing and ii) obtain the registered
person's written acknowledgment that the information has been received
and reviewed, which may be accomplished electronically, before
filing.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The member, as part of its recordkeeping requirements
pursuant to Rule 17a-4(e)(1) under the Act, would be required to
retain the written acknowledgment and make it available promptly
upon request.

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

    In the event the member is not able to obtain an associated
person's manual signature or written acknowledgement of an amendment to
disclosure information before filing the amended Form U4, the proposal
would require that the member file disclosure information of which it
has knowledge, and the member would enter ``Representative Refused to
Sign/Acknowledge'' or ``Representative Not Available'' or a
substantially similar phrase in the signature box of the electronic
form. This change codifies the member's obligation in Article V,
Section 2 of FINRA's By-Laws that every Form U4 be kept current.
    Fourth, the proposed rule change incorporates the practice in the
Web CRD of permitting administrative information (such as the addition
of state or self-regulatory organization registrations, exam
scheduling, and updates to residential, business, and personal history)
to be amended on Form U4 without obtaining the associated person's
signature.\8\ If that occurs, the member must use reasonable efforts to
provide the associated person with a copy of the amended administrative
information that was filed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 41575 (June 29,
1999), 64 FR 36728, 36729 n.7 (July 7, 1999) (Order Approving File
No. SR-NASD-99-28); see also Securities Exchange Act Release No.
37439 (July 15, 1996), 61 FR 37950 (July 22, 1996) (Order Approving
File No. SR-NASD-96-21).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fifth, the proposal would permit the registered principal(s) or
corporate officer(s) who is responsible for supervising a firm's
electronic filings to delegate to another associated person, who need
not be registered, the electronic filing of the member's forms via Web
CRD. The principal(s) or corporate officer(s) may not, however,
delegate any of his supervision, review or approval responsibilities
and must take reasonable and appropriate action to ensure that all
delegated electronic filing functions are properly executed and
supervised.

Proposed FINRA Rule 2263

    The proposed rule change transfers NASD Rule 3080 into the
consolidated FINRA Rulebook as FINRA Rule 2263 with several minor
changes. First, the proposed rule change amends the current title
``Disclosure to Associated Person When Signing Form U-4'' to
``Arbitration Disclosure to Associated Persons Signing or Acknowledging
Form U4'' to clarify that the rule relates to arbitration disclosures.
Second, proposed FINRA Rule 2263 clarifies that a member must provide
the required arbitration disclosures whenever a member asks an
associated person, pursuant to proposed FINRA Rule 1010, to manually
sign an initial or amended Form U4, or to otherwise provide written
acknowledgement, which may be electronic, of an amendment to the Form.
Third, the proposed rule updates language to reflect amendments to
FINRA's Code of Arbitration Procedure requiring arbitrators to provide
an explained decision to the parties in eligible cases if there is a
joint request by all parties at least twenty days before the first
scheduled hearing date.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59358 (February 4,
2009), 74 FR 6928 (February 11, 2009) (Order Approving File No. SR-
FINRA-2008-051).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Comments

Proposed FINRA Rule 1010(c)(3)

    While the Schwab Letter generally supports the proposal, it
expressed several concerns, including that the aspect of the proposed
rule that requires the member to file amendments to U4 regarding
disclosure information as to which it has knowledge, proposed FINRA
Rule 1010(c)(3) would require a firm to file a Form U4 disclosure
amendment when the firm may have inaccurate or incomplete information.
Schwab also argues that the proposal may dilute the standard that the
primary responsibility for updating and keeping current Form U4 lies
with the associated person.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Schwab Letter at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA responded that the proposal merely codifies a member's
existing obligation under Article V, Section 2(c) of FINRA's By-Laws
that every U4 be kept current, and implicit in this duty is the
expectation that the member will seek to ensure that such information
is accurate and complete.\11\ FINRA noted that the member's obligation
is in addition to the associated person's obligation to keep Form U4
current, which is set forth generally in Article V, Section 2 of the
FINRA By-Laws.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Response Letter at 2.
    \12\ Id. at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed FINRA Rule 1010(c)(4)

    Schwab supports allowing firms to file amendments to administrative
information without obtaining the associated person's signature, but it
objects to the requirement that the member firm use reasonable efforts
to provide the associated person with a copy of the amended
administrative information and believes that this could cause firms to
incur significant system changes and costs.\13\ FINRA responded that
Web CRD is used to help protect investors, and its effectiveness
depends on accurate information.\14\ Thus, FINRA believes this aspect
of the proposal is appropriate in that it encourages members to verify
information with an associated person while allowing firms the
flexibility to do so after amendments to administrative information
have been filed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Schwab Letter at 4.
    \14\ See Response Letter at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed FINRA Rule 1010(c)(1) and (2) and FINRA Rule 2263

    Schwab believes that the requirements imposed on a firm, in
connection with filing amendments to Form U4 disclosure information
without obtaining the associated person's manual signature, and
providing the written statement related to arbitration disclosure, may
prove costly and complex for firms to implement.\15\ Schwab opines that
the goal of having clear evidence of the registered person's knowledge
and acceptance of disclosure information may be achieved using existing
procedures and electronic systems that accomplish certain
functions.\16\ FINRA stated that this concern can be addressed with
interpretive guidance and that it would address it accordingly,
assuming approval of the proposal.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Schwab Letter at 4-5.
    \16\ Id.
    \17\ See Response Letter at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After carefully reviewing the proposed rule change, the Schwab
Letter, and the Response Letter, the Commission finds that the proposal
is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
association.\18\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposal
is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\19\ which requires,
among other things that FINRA's rules be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the revisions FINRA proposed in
connection with moving NASD Rule 1140 and Rule 3080 to the consolidated
FINRA Rulebook as new FINRA Rule 1010 and new FINRA Rule 2263 should,

among other things, strike a fair balance between providing notice to
associated persons of changes to their U4 where obtaining a signature
may prove difficult and allowing firms to expeditiously update
information. In addition, the Commission believes that it is
appropriate for FINRA to make explicit in its rules a member's
obligation to ensure that information in Form U4 regarding its
associated persons is accurate, even though this requirement is
explicit in FINRA's By-Laws. Ensuring that information in Web CRD is
current and accurate enhances the usefulness of Web CRD.
    The Commission believes that FINRA, in its Response Letter,
adequately addressed the comments raised in the Schwab Letter. The
Commission emphasizes that FINRA correctly noted that both firms and
associated persons have a duty to keep information in Web CRD current,
and both are responsible for ensuring that disclosure information is
accurate; this proposal merely codifies this obligation. The Commission
also agrees with FINRA that firms should try to ensure the accuracy and
completeness of information submitted. This purpose should be served by
the rule requiring a firm to use reasonable efforts to provide the
associated person with a copy of the amended disclosure information
post-filing, since the firm should have contact information for the
associated person, whom it is responsible for regulating, and the
associated person can ensure that the amended information is accurate.
    For the reasons discussed above, the Commission finds that the rule
change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\20\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2009-019), be, and
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-17764 Filed 7-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P