[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 101 (Friday, May 24, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24042-24048]
[FR Doc No: 2019-10793]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0572; FRL-9992-69]

Fluensulfone; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes and amends tolerances for residues
of fluensulfone in or on multiple commodities which are identified and
discussed later in this document. Makhteshim Agan of North America (d/
b/a ADAMA) requested these tolerances and tolerance amendments under
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective May 24, 2019. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before July 23, 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-2017-0572, 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, 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_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-2017-0572 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
July 23, 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-2017-0572, 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 Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of February 27, 2018 (83 FR 8408) (FRL-
9972-17), 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
7F8614) by Makhteshim Agan of North America d/b/a ADAMA, 3120 Highlands
Blvd., Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27604. The petition requested that 40 CFR
part 180 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the
nematicide, fluensulfone, including its metabolites and degradates, in
or on the following commodities: Citrus dried pulp at 0.4 parts per
million (ppm); Crop Group 10-10, citrus fruit at 0.15 ppm; peanut at
0.15 ppm; peanut, hay at 8.0 ppm; and peanut, meal at 0.30 ppm. That
document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Makhteshim
Agan of North America, the registrant, which is available in docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0572 at http://www.regulations.gov. One comment
was received on the notice of filing. EPA's response to this comment is
discussed in Unit IV.C.
    In the Federal Register of May 18, 2018 (83 FR 23247) (FRL-9976-
87), 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
7F8650) by Makhteshim Agan of North America, d/b/a ADAMA, 3120
Highlands Blvd., Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27604. The petition requested
to amend the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.680 for residues of the
nematicide, fluensulfone and its metabolite BSA expressed as
fluensulfone equivalents, in or on Berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G
at 0.5 parts per million (ppm); Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A at
1.5 ppm; Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B at 20 ppm; Potato, chips
at 2 ppm; Potato, granules/flakes at 2 ppm; Tomato, paste at 1.5 ppm;
Vegetables, cucurbits, group 9 at 0.7 ppm; Vegetables, fruiting, group
8-10 at 0.7 ppm; Vegetables, leafy, except Brassica, group 4 at 4 ppm;
Vegetables, leaves of root and tuber, group 2, except sugar beet at 50
ppm;

Vegetables, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B at 4 ppm; and
Vegetables, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C at 0.8 ppm. That document
referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Makhteshim Agan of
North America, the registrant, which is available in docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0030 at http://www.regulations.gov. There were no
comments received in response to the notice of filing.
    In the Federal Register of March 18, 2019 (84 FR 9737) (FRL-9989-
71), 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
7F8650) by Makhteshim Agan of North America, d/b/a ADAMA, 3120
Highlands Blvd., Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27604. The petition requested
to: (1) Amend the tolerance expression in 40 CFR 180.680 paragraphs (a)
and (d) to read ``Tolerances are established for residues of the
nematicide fluensulfone, including its metabolites and degradates, in
or on the commodities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance
levels specified in the following table below is to be determined by
measuring only the sum of fluensulfone, 5-chloro-2-[(3,4,4-trifluoro-3-
buten-1-yl)sulfonyl]thiazole and its metabolite, 3,4,4-trifluoro-but-3-
ene-1-sulfonic acid, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of
fluensulfone, in or on the commodity''; and (2) amend the tolerances in
40 CFR 180.680 for residues of the nematicide, fluensulfone and its
metabolite BSA expressed as fluensulfone equivalents, on the raw
agricultural commodities as follows: Almond hulls at 5 parts per
million (ppm); Fruit, pome, group 11 at 0.4 ppm; Fruit, small vine
climbing subgroup 13-07D at 0.8 ppm; Fruit, stone, group 12 at 0.1 ppm;
Grain cereal, forage, fodder and straw, group 16 at 3 ppm; and, rotated
wheat (inadvertent residues with 90-day PBI): Grain, cereal, group 15
at 0.05 ppm; Molasses at 0.3 ppm; and, rotated cereal grains
(inadvertent residues with 10-month PBI): Nut, tree, group 14 at 0.04
ppm; Sugarcane at 0.05 ppm and Wheat grain (includes triticale) (Barley
grain; Buckwheat grain; Oat grain; and Teosinte grain) at 0.1 ppm;
Wheat bran (Barley bran) at 0.14 ppm; Wheat forage (Oat forage) at 6
ppm; Wheat germ at 0.10 ppm; Wheat hay (Barley hay and Oat hay) at 15
ppm; Wheat middlings at 0.10 ppm; Wheat shorts at 0.11 ppm; and, Wheat
straw (Barley straw and Oat straw) at 6 ppm. That document referenced a
summary of the petition prepared by Makhteshim Agan of North America,
the registrant, which is available in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-
0793 at http://www.regulations.gov. One comment was received on the
notice of filing. EPA's response to this comment is discussed in Unit
IV.C.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petitions, EPA has
modified the levels at which tolerances are being established as well
as which commodities will have tolerances. 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 fluensulfone including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with fluensulfone 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.
    A summary of the toxicological effects of fluensulfone are
discussed in the final rule published in the Federal Register of April
13, 2018 (83 FR 15971) (FRL-9975-76).
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by fluensulfone 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 ``Fluensulfone--Aggregate
Human Health Risk Assessment in Support of Section 3 Registration of
New Uses on Citrus and Peanut, and Change in the Tolerance Expression''
on pages 39-49 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0572.

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://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for fluensulfone used for
human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule
published in the Federal Register of June 1, 2016 (81 FR 34898) (FRL-
9946-07).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to fluensulfone, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all

existing fluensulfone tolerances in 40 CFR 180.680. EPA assessed
dietary exposures from fluensulfone 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 fluensulfone. In estimating acute
dietary exposure, EPA used 2003-2008 food consumption information from
the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA).
As to residue levels in food, the acute dietary risk assessment assumed
tolerance-equivalent residues and 100 percent crop treated (PCT).
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used 2003-2008 food consumption information from the
USDA's NHANES/WWEIA. As to residue levels in food, the chronic dietary
risk assessment assumed tolerance-equivalent residues and 100 PCT.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that a nonlinear RfD approach is appropriate for assessing
cancer risk to fluensulfone. Cancer risk was assessed using the same
exposure estimates as discussed in Unit III.C.1.ii., chronic exposure.
    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA did not use
anticipated residue or PCT information in the dietary assessment for
fluensulfone. Tolerance-equivalent residue levels and 100 PCT 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 fluensulfone in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of fluensulfone. 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 Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM
GW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) for
acute exposures are estimated to be 11.8 parts per billion (ppb) for
surface water and 77.6 ppb for ground water and for chronic exposures
are estimated to be 0.173 ppb for surface water and 52.5 ppb for ground
water. Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For the acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 77.6 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water. For the chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 52.5 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).
    Fluensulfone is currently registered for the following uses that
could result in residential exposures: Golf courses and residential
lawns. EPA assessed residential exposure using the following
assumptions: No residential handler exposure for fluensulfone is
expected because the products are not intended for homeowner use. The
product label requires that handlers wear specific clothing (e.g., long
sleeve shirt/long pants) and/or personal protective equipment (PPE).
The Agency has made the assumption that the product is not for
homeowner use and is intended for use by professional applicators. As a
result, a residential handler assessment has not been conducted.
    For adult residential post-application exposure, the Agency
evaluated dermal post-application exposure only to outdoor turf/lawn
applications (high contact activities). The Agency also evaluated
residential post-application exposure for children via dermal and hand-
to-mouth routes of exposure, resulting from treated outdoor turf/lawn
applications (high contact activities). Further information regarding
EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures
may be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.
    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 fluensulfone to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and fluensulfone does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
fluensulfone 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. No evidence of increased
quantitative or qualitative susceptibility was seen in developmental
toxicity studies in rats and rabbits. Fetal effects in those studies
occurred in the presence of maternal toxicity and were not considered
more severe than the maternal effects. However, there was evidence of
increased qualitative, but not quantitative, susceptibility of pups in
the 2-generation reproduction study in rats. Maternal effects observed
in that study were decreased body weight; at the same dose, effects in
offspring were decreased pup weights, decreased spleen weight, and
increased pup loss (post-natal day 1-4). Although there is evidence of
increased qualitative susceptibility in the 2-generation reproduction
study in rats, there are no residual uncertainties with regard to pre-
and post-natal toxicity following in utero exposure to rats or rabbits
and pre- and post-natal exposures to rats. Considering the overall
toxicity profile, the clear NOAEL for the pup effects observed in the
2-generation reproduction study, and that the doses selected for risk
assessment are protective of all effects in the toxicity database
including the offspring effects,

the degree of concern for the susceptibility is low.
    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 fluensulfone is complete.
    ii. Evidence of potential neurotoxicity was only seen following
acute exposure to fluensulfone and the current PODs chosen for risk
assessment are protective of the effects observed. There is no need for
a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for
neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no indication of quantitative susceptibility in the
developmental and reproductive toxicity studies, and there are no
residual uncertainties concerning pre- or post-natal toxicity. In
addition, the endpoints and doses chosen for risk assessment are
protective of the qualitative susceptibility observed in the 2-
generation reproduction study.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100 PCT and tolerance-equivalent residue levels. EPA made
conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water
modeling used to assess exposure to fluensulfone in drinking water. EPA
used similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-application
exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers.
These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed
by fluensulfone.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to fluensulfone will occupy 9.4% of the aPAD for all infants less than
1 year old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
fluensulfone from food and water will utilize 4.1% of the cPAD for all
infants less than 1 year old, the population group receiving the
greatest exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding
residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of
fluensulfone 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).
    Fluensulfone 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 fluensulfone.
    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 5300 for adults
and 2500 for children. Because EPA's level of concern for fluensulfone
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,
fluensulfone 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
fluensulfone.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. EPA assessed cancer
risk using a non-linear approach (i.e., RfD) since it adequately
accounts for all chronic toxicity, including carcinogenicity, that
could result from exposure to fluensulfone. As the chronic dietary
endpoint and dose are protective of potential cancer effects,
fluensulfone is not expected to pose an aggregate cancer risk.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to fluensulfone residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An enforcement analytical method for the BSA metabolite was
previously submitted and found to be acceptable. The method extracts
residues from matrices into an acetonitrile-based solvent, involves
minimal cleanup, and uses high-performance liquid chromatography with
tandem mass spectrometric detection (LC-MS/MS) in negative-ion mode to
isolate, identify and quantify residues. For all matrices and analytes,
the limit of quantitation (LOQ), defined as the lowest level of method
validation (LLMV), was 0.01 ppm. With the change to the tolerance
expression, an enforcement method is now needed for parent
fluensulfone. A method for analysis of fluensulfone residues was
previously submitted and has been found to be suitable for enforcement.
The method is essentially identical to that used for BSA analysis but
omits the cleanup step and uses LC-MS/MS in the positive-ion mode for
isolation, identification, and quantification of residues.
    The FDA multi-residue protocols are not suitable for the analysis
of fluensulfone or its metabolites BSA and TSA. The Agency notes that
QuEChERS multi-residue method may be suitable for the analysis of these
compounds, based on extraction solvents and clean-up strategies being
similar to the analytical method described above.
    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 fluensulfone for citrus.
    The Codex has established MRLs for fluensulfone in or on some of
the commodities or parts of some of the crop groups that are being
revised in this document. The U.S. tolerances are harmonized with the
Codex MRLs to the extent possible. In several cases (below), there is
disharmony between U.S. crop group tolerances and Codex MRLs for
individual commodities covered by the crop group. Because EPA has data
supporting the establishment of the crop groups and no data that
indicate a need to establish separate individual commodities, the
effect is that tolerances for some individual commodities are not
harmonized with Codex MRLs.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Tolerance
             Commodity                (ppm) U.S.      MRL (mg/kg) Codex
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brassica, leafy green, subgroup 5B              20  1 (Group of leafy
                                                     vegetables) 9
                                                     (Komatsuna).
Vegetables, cucurbits, group 9....            0.70  0.3 (Melons, except
                                                     watermelon).
Vegetables, leafy, except                      4.0  1 (Group of leafy
 Brassica, group 4.                                  vegetables).
Vegetables, leaves of root and                  50  1 (Group of leafy
 tuber, group 2, except sugar beet.                  vegetables) 10
                                                     (Turnip greens).
Vegetables, root, except sugar                 4.0  3 (Root and tuber
 beet, subgroup 1B.                                  vegetables).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Response to Comments

    One comment generally opposing the use of fluensulfone was received
in response to the notice of filing for citrus and peanut uses (EPA-HQ-
OPP-2017-0572). Although the Agency recognizes that some individuals
believe that pesticides should be banned on agricultural crops, the
existing legal framework provided by section 408 of the Federal Food,
Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) authorizes EPA to establish tolerances
when it determines that the tolerance is safe. Upon consideration of
the validity, completeness, and reliability of the available data as
well as other factors the FFDCA requires EPA to consider, EPA has
determined that these fluensulfone tolerances are safe. The commenter
has provided no information supporting a contrary conclusion.
    One comment was received in response to the notice of filing to
amend the tolerance expression for fluensulfone to harmonize with the
Codex residue definition (EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0793). The commenter
supported the federal government regulating the chemicals in pesticides
and specifically wanted EPA to set higher safety standards for
pesticides. As explained in the previous paragraph, EPA evaluated
fluensulfone using the existing safety standard in the FFDCA and has
determined that these fluensulfone tolerances are safe.

D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    For stone fruit (Crop Group 12-12) and sugarcane, the tolerances
being established by the Agency are derived using the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) MRL calculation procedures
and based on available residue data.
    The tolerance for tree nuts is based on the requested revision to
the tolerance expression. As such, it is the combination of 0.01 ppm
BSA and 0.01 ppm fluensulfone, resulting in the level of 0.02 ppm as
opposed to the proposed 0.04 ppm.
    Inadvertent tolerances in barley bran and wheat bran are being
revised to 0.15 ppm (based on the OECD calculation procedure rounding
classes), rather than the proposed tolerances at 0.14 ppm.
    The petitioner had requested a higher tolerance for inadvertent
residues on teosinte grain than the tolerance level set for crop group
15, based on the residue data used to establish the higher tolerance
for wheat grain. These higher tolerances are based on residue data that
indicate higher tolerances are necessary for crops for which the
pesticide label permits a shorter plant-back interval (i.e., wheat,
barley, buckwheat, oats). For other crops, including teosinte, the
pesticide label establishes a longer plant-back interval, and
associated residue data indicate that such intervals result in lower
residues on those crops. It is this latter set of residue data and the
pesticide label instructions for plant-back intervals that support the
crop group 15 tolerance as well as the Agency's conclusion that
residues in teosinte will be covered by the crop group 15 tolerance. A
tolerance in wheat milled byproducts is being established at 0.15 ppm
(based on the OECD calculation procedure rounding classes); because a
tolerance on wheat milled byproducts covers residues in both wheat
shorts and wheat middlings, tolerances on those individual commodities
are unnecessary.
    Although the petitioner did not request a revision of the existing
grape, raisin tolerance, EPA is modifying that tolerance to 1.5 ppm. As
noted in 40 CFR 180.40(f)(1), EPA will not establish crop group
tolerances unless necessary tolerances for processed foods are also
established. In this action, the petitioner has requested an increase
in the tolerance for subgroup 13-07D, which includes grape. Based on
available data, EPA has determined that an amended tolerance for grape,
raisin would be necessary. This tolerance is derived from the revised
highest average field trial (HAFT) of 0.49 ppm from the grape field
trials, using the revised residue definition (fluensulfone + BSA, in
terms of fluensulfone), multiplied by the median processing factor for
raisins from the processing study (2.7X), resulting in 1.32 ppm;
therefore, a tolerance of 1.5 ppm in raisin is appropriate.
    For citrus, EPA used processing factors of 233X for fluensulfone
and <0.5X for BSA in citrus oil. Application of these processing
factors and OECD MRL rounding classes indicates that residues will
concentrate in dried pulp at higher levels than requested as well as in
citrus oil. In accordance with 40 CFR 180.40(f)(1), EPA is establishing
a tolerance for fruit, citrus, group 10-10, oil at 15 ppm. Based on the
Agency's calculations, EPA is also establishing the proposed tolerance
for citrus, dried pulp as a tolerance for fruit, citrus, group 10-10,
dried pulp at 0.9 ppm, rather than 0.4 ppm.
    Although the petitioner requested tolerances on peanut commodities,
after EPA determined that the submitted field trial data were not
adequate to support a tolerance the petitioner withdrew its request for
those tolerances; therefore,

EPA is not establishing tolerances for residues on peanut; peanut, hay;
or peanut, meal.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of fluensulfone,
and its metabolite BSA expressed as fluensulfone equivalents, in or on
fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 0.3 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10-10,
dried pulp at 0.9 ppm; and fruit, citrus, group 10-10, oil at 15 ppm.
    Additionally, existing tolerances under paragraphs (a) and (d) are
revised as follows for residues of fluensulfone, and its metabolite BSA
expressed as fluensulfone equivalents, as follows: Paragraph (a):
Almond, hulls at 5 ppm; berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G at 0.5 ppm;
Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A at 1.5 ppm; Brassica, leafy
greens, subgroup 5B at 20 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 0.4 ppm;
fruit, small, vine climbing, subgroup 13-07D at 0.8 ppm; fruit, stone,
group 12-12 at 0.15 ppm; grape, raisin at 1.5 ppm; nut, tree, group 14-
12 at 0.02 ppm; potato, chips at 2 ppm; potato, granules/flakes at 2
ppm; sugarcane, cane at 0.06 ppm; sugarcane, molasses at 0.3 ppm;
tomato, paste at 1.5 ppm; vegetables, cucurbits, group 9 at 0.7 ppm;
vegetables, fruiting, group 8-10 at 0.7 ppm; vegetables, leafy, except
Brassica, group 4 at 4 ppm; vegetables, leaves of root and tuber, group
2, except sugar beet at 50 ppm; vegetables, root, except sugar beet,
subgroup 1B at 4 ppm; and vegetables, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C at
0.8 ppm; Paragraph (d): barley, bran at 0.15 ppm; barley, grain at 0.1
ppm; barley, hay at 15 ppm; barley, straw at 6 ppm; buckwheat, grain at
0.1 ppm; grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw, group 16 at 3 ppm;
grain, cereal, group 15 at 0.05 ppm; oat, forage at 6 ppm; oat, grain
at 0.1 ppm; oat, hay at 15 ppm; oat, straw at 6 ppm; wheat, bran at
0.15 ppm; wheat, forage at 6 ppm; wheat, germ at 0.1 ppm; wheat, grain
at 0.1 ppm; wheat, hay at 15 ppm; wheat, milled byproducts at 0.15 ppm;
and wheat, straw at 6 ppm.
    Lastly, the tolerance expressions for fluensulfone currently
established under 40 CFR 180.680 (a) and (d) are revised to read as
follows ``Tolerances are established for residues of the nematicide
fluensulfone, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the
commodities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance levels
specified in the following table below is to be determined by measuring
only the sum of fluensulfone, 5-chloro-2-[(3,4,4-trifluoro-3-buten-1-
yl)sulfonyl]thiazole and its metabolite,
3,4,4[hyphen]trifluoro[hyphen]but[hyphen]3[hyphen]ene[hyphen]1[hyphen]su
lfonic acid, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of
fluensulfone, in or on the commodity.''

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes and modifies 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) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), nor is it considered a
regulatory action under 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 tolerances 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: May 16, 2019.
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. Revise Sec.  180.680 to read as follows:

Sec.  180.680  Fluensulfone; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of the
nematicide fluensulfone, including its metabolites and degradates, in
or on the commodities in the table 1 to Sec.  180.680. Compliance with
the tolerance levels specified in the following table below is to be
determined by measuring only the sum of fluensulfone, 5-chloro-2-
[(3,4,4-trifluoro-3-buten-1-yl)sulfonyl]thiazole and its metabolite,
3,4,4[hyphen]trifluoro[hyphen]but[hyphen]3[hyphen]ene[hyphen]1[hyphen]su
lfonic acid, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of
fluensulfone, in or on the commodity.

                        Table 1 to Sec.   180.680
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Parts
                           Commodity                               per
                                                                 million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almond, hulls..................................................        5
Berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G............................      0.5
Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A...........................      1.5
Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B............................       20
Fruit, citrus, group 10-10.....................................      0.3
Fruit, citrus, group 10-10, dried pulp.........................      0.9
Fruit, citrus, group 10-10, oil................................       15
Fruit, pome, group 11-10.......................................      0.4
Fruit, small, vine climbing, subgroup 13-07D...................      0.8
Fruit, stone, group 12-12......................................     0.15
Grape, raisin..................................................      1.5
Nut, tree, group 14-12.........................................     0.02
Potato, chips..................................................        2
Potato, granules/flakes........................................        2
Sugarcane, cane................................................     0.06
Sugarcane, molasses............................................      0.3
Tomato, paste..................................................      1.5
Vegetables, cucurbits, group 9.................................      0.7
Vegetables, fruiting, group 8-10...............................      0.7
Vegetables, leafy, except Brassica, group 4....................        4
Vegetables, leaves of root and tuber, group 2, except sugar           50
 beet..........................................................
Vegetables, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B...............        4
Vegetables, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C.....................      0.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]
    (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. [Reserved]
    (d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. Tolerances are established
for residues of the nematicide fluensulfone, including its metabolites
and degradates, in or on the commodities in table 2 to Sec.  180.680.
Compliance with the tolerance levels specified in the following table
below is to be determined by measuring only the sum of fluensulfone, 5-
chloro-2-[(3,4,4-trifluoro-3-buten-1-yl)sulfonyl]thiazole and its
metabolite,
3,4,4[hyphen]trifluoro[hyphen]but[hyphen]3[hyphen]ene[hyphen]1[hyphen]su
lfonic acid, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of
fluensulfone, in or on the commodity.

                        Table 2 to Sec.   180.680
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Parts
                           Commodity                               per
                                                                 million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barley, bran...................................................     0.15
Barley, grain..................................................      0.1
Barley, hay....................................................       15
Barley, straw..................................................        6
Buckwheat, grain...............................................      0.1
Grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw, group 16..............        3
Grain, cereal, group 15........................................     0.05
Oat, forage....................................................        6
Oat, grain.....................................................      0.1
Oat, hay.......................................................       15
Oat, straw.....................................................        6
Wheat, bran....................................................     0.15
Wheat, forage..................................................        6
Wheat, germ....................................................      0.1
Wheat, grain...................................................      0.1
Wheat, hay.....................................................       15
Wheat, milled byproducts.......................................     0.15
Wheat, straw...................................................        6
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2019-10793 Filed 5-23-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Jennifer Chan To: Carey Johnston/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, John 03/ 05/ 2003 10: 05 Fox/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA AM cc:

Subject: FYI  Response from Texas Railroad Commission  Forwarded by Jennifer Chan/ DC/ USEPA/ US on 03/ 05/ 2003 10: 04 AM

Larry Hannesschlager < larry. hannesschlager@ rrc. s To: Jennifer Chan/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA tate. tx. us> cc: Jill Hybner < jill. hybner@ rrc. state. tx. us> Subject: Re: request for help regarding oil and gas 03/ 05/ 2003 09: 56 AM facilities I do not know of any platforms that use cooling water, however, here is a list of platforms in the state territorial seas that have active produced water discharge permits from the Railroad Commission.

Permit Nos. 00268, 00741, & 01018 State Tracts 903S, 900S, & 748L, respectively. Osprey Petroleum Company, Inc.  phone ( 281) 582 0600 Permit No. 00687 State Tract 582S Vamos Oil & Gas, L. L. C.  phone ( 337) 232 4856 Permit Nos. 00707, 00959, 00960, & 00981 State Tracts 830S, 833S, 840S, & 833S, respectively. Forest Oil Corp.  phone ( 504) 838 7022 Permit No. 00852 State Tract 60S Sterling Exploration & Production Co., L. L. C.  phone ( 713) 780 9200 Permit No. 01012 State Tract 883S Amerada Hess Corporation  phone ( 713) 609 5926 I hope this info is of some help.

Larry Hannesschlager Environmental Services Section Oil & Gas Division phone ( 512) 463 7300 >>> < Chan. Jennifer@ epamail. epa. gov> 02/ 28/ 03 12: 48PM >>> Hello, I got your name from Scott Wilson of EPA Region 6. I was hoping you can help us. We, EPA Headquarters, are working on a rule regarding cooling water intake structures which may cover offshore and coastal oil and gas extraction facilities. We have been working with MMS to obtain the number of fixed platforms in the OCS and their operators. In addition, several OCS facilities have provided technical information on their cooling water intake structures. However, we don't have any information on facilities/ structures in coastal or state waters. I understand many facilities/ structures do not use cooling water.

My request is for a list of facilities/ structures in coastal or state waters who use cooling water and their design intake is greater than 2 million gallon per day. If it is not possible to distinguish, then a list of all facilities/ structures.

Our goal is to limit the number of technical and economic questionnaires we need to send out during our potential survey in late Spring. Thanks in advance.

Jennifer Chan 202 566 1078 US EPA, OW, OST, EAD


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1090-1091]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00156]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 32961; 812-14806]

Northern Lights Fund Trust and AlphaCore Capital, LLC

January 3, 2018.
AGENCY:  Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION:  Notice.

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

    Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') for an exemption from section 15(a) of
the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act, as well as from certain
disclosure requirements in rule 20a-1 under the Act, Item 19(a)(3) of
Form N-1A, Items 22(c)(1)(ii), 22(c)(1)(iii), 22(c)(8) and 22(c)(9) of
Schedule 14A under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and sections 6-
07(2)(a), (b), and (c) of Regulation S-X (``Disclosure Requirements'').
The requested

exemption would permit an investment adviser to hire and replace
certain subadvisers without shareholder approval and grant relief from
the Disclosure Requirements as they relate to fees paid to the
subadvisers.

Applicants:  Northern Lights Fund Trust (the ``Trust''), a Delaware
statutory trust registered under the Act as an open-end management
investment company, and AlphaCore Capital, LLC (the ``Adviser''), a
Delaware limited liability company registered as an investment adviser
under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (collectively with the Trust,
the ``Applicants'').

Filing Dates:  The application was filed on August 3, 2017 and amended
on November 29, 2017.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing:  An order granting the application
will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary
and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by
mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30
p.m. on January 29, 2018, and should be accompanied by proof of service
on the applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing
requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts
bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason
for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be
notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the
Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES:  Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: Northern Lights Fund
Trust, 17605 Wright Street, Omaha, NE 68130 and AlphaCore Capital, LLC,
875 Prospect Street #315, La Jolla, CA 92037.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Barbara T. Heussler, Senior Counsel,
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Robert H. Shapiro, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-
6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's website by searching for the file number, or an applicant
using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or
by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Summary of the Application

    1. The Adviser will serve as the investment adviser to the Funds
pursuant to an investment advisory agreement with the Trust (the
``Advisory Agreement'').\1\ The Adviser will provide each Fund with
overall investment management services and will continuously review,
supervise and administer each Fund's investment program, subject to the
supervision of, and policies established by, each Fund's board of
trustees (``Board''). The Advisory Agreement permits the Adviser,
subject to the approval of the Board, to delegate to one or more
subadvisers (each, a ``Subadviser'' and collectively, the
``Subadvisers'') the responsibility to provide the day-to-day portfolio
investment management of each Fund, subject to the supervision and
direction of the Adviser. The primary responsibility for managing the
Funds will remain vested in the Adviser. The Adviser will hire,
evaluate, allocate assets to and oversee the Subadvisers, including
determining whether a Subadviser should be terminated, at all times
subject to the authority of the Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Applicants request relief with respect to any existing or
future series of the Trust or any other registered open-end
management company that: (a) Is advised by the Adviser, or any
person controlling, controlled by or under common control with the
Adviser or its successor (each, an ``Adviser''); (b) uses the
manager of managers structure described in the application; and (c)
complies with the terms and conditions of the application (any such
series, a ``Fund'' and collectively, the ``Funds''). For purposes of
the requested order, ``successor'' is limited to an entity that
results from a reorganization into another jurisdiction or a change
in the type of business organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Applicants request an exemption to permit the Adviser, subject
to Board approval, to hire certain Subadvisers pursuant to subadvisory
agreements and materially amend existing subadvisory agreements without
obtaining the shareholder approval required under section 15(a) of the
Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act.\2\ Applicants also seek an exemption
from the Disclosure Requirements to permit a Fund to disclose (as both
a dollar amount and a percentage of the Fund's net assets): (a) The
aggregate fees paid to the Adviser and any Affiliated Subadviser; and
(b) the aggregate fees paid to Subadvisers other than Affiliated
Subadvisers. For any Fund that employs an Affiliated Subadviser, the
Fund will provide separate disclosure of any fees paid to the
Affiliated Subadviser.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The requested relief will not extend to any subadviser that
is an affiliated person, as defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act,
of the Trust, a Fund, or the Adviser, other than solely by reason of
serving as a Subadviser to one or more of the Funds, or as an
adviser or subadviser to any series of the Trust other than the
Funds (``Affiliated Subadviser'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief
will be subject to the terms and conditions stated in the application.
Such terms and conditions provide for, among other safeguards,
appropriate disclosure to Fund shareholders and notification about
subadvisory changes and enhanced Board oversight to protect the
interests of the Funds' shareholders.
    4. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt
any person, security, or transaction or any class or classes of
persons, securities, or transactions from any provisions of the Act, or
any rule thereunder, if such relief is necessary or appropriate in the
public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and
purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.
Applicants believe that the requested relief meets this standard
because, as further explained in the application, the Advisory
Agreements will remain subject to shareholder approval while the role
of the Subadvisers is substantially similar to that of individual
portfolio managers, so that requiring shareholder approval of
subadvisory agreements would impose unnecessary delays and expenses on
the Funds. Applicants believe that the requested relief from the
Disclosure Requirements meets this standard because it will improve the
Adviser's ability to negotiate fees paid to the Subadvisers that are
more advantageous for the Funds.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-00156 Filed 1-8-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


To: Elaine Eby/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

From: "James Childress"<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Date: 07/16/2007 03:38PM

cc: William Brandes/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject: Refineries Using Gasification

Elaine,

A search of our online database indicates a total of 19 refineries around the world in which gasification units are operating.  A table with these plants listed is attached.

I hope this is helpful.

Jim Childress

James Childress

Executive Director

Gasification Technologies Council

phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

mobile:<PHONE_NUMBER>


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 151 (Thursday, August 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47021-47023]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19375]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2015-3323]

Notice of Public Meetings for Unmanned Aircraft Systems Test
Sites and Center of Excellence

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of public meetings.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA will support seven public meetings during August and
September, 2015. These meetings will be hosted by the six unmanned
aircraft system (UAS) Test Sites and UAS Center of Excellence (COE).
The purpose of these meetings is to discuss innovation and
opportunities at the Test Sites and COE.

DATES: Please see below for the date, time, and location of the
meetings.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Unmanned Aircraft Systems
Integration Office, AFS-80, Federal Aviation

Administration at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On December 30, 2013, the FAA selected six UAS Test Sites. This
selection was Congressionally-mandated by section 332 of the FAA
Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-95). The FAA is
working closely with the Test Sites to guide research programs toward
specific goals such as System Safety & Data Gathering, Aircraft
Certification, Command & Control Link Issues, Control Station Layout &
Certification, Ground & Airborne Sense & Avoid, and Environmental
Impacts that will help the FAA safely integrate UAS into the national
airspace system.
    On May 8, 2015, the FAA selected a Mississippi State University
team as the FAA's Center of Excellence for Unmanned Aircraft Systems
(COE UAS). The COE will focus on research, education, and training in
areas critical to safe and successful integration of UAS into the
nation's airspace.

Purpose of the Public Meetings

    The purpose of these meetings is to discuss innovation and
opportunities at the Test Sites and COE. The Test Sites and COE will
host and set the agenda for each public meeting. The meetings will aid
both public and private sector stakeholders to better understand the
value the Test Sites and COE provide in furthering UAS integration
through research, development, and operational testing.

Public Meeting Dates, Times, and Locations

    The meetings will be held on the following dates. Please contact
the UAS Test Sites or COE through the individuals listed below for
further details on location, time, and event logistics.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Date, time, and
              Site                location of meeting    Point of contact                 Web site
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 UAS Test Sites
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia Polytechnic Institute    Monday, August 24,   Jennifer Tomlin,     www.maap.ictas.vt.edu.
 and State University Test Site.   2015, 1pm-3pm        Program Manager,
                                   (local), Virginia    Mid-Atlantic
                                   Tech Executive       Aviation
                                   Briefing Center,     Partnership, (540)
                                   900 N. Glebe Road,   231-8890,
                                   Arlington, VA<EMAIL_ADDRESS>University of Alaska Test Site..  Thursday, August     Diana Campbell,      www.uasalaska.org.
                                   27, 2015, 11am-1     Public Relations
                                   pm (local), Murie    Assistant/Event
                                   Auditorium, 103      Coordinator for
                                   Murie Bldg., 982     the Geophysical
                                   Koyukuk Drive,       Institute, (907)
                                   University of        474-5229,
                                   Alaska Fairbanks,    dlcampbell@alaska.
                                   Fairbanks, AK.       edu..
State of Nevada Test Site.......  Thursday, September  Thomas A. Wilczek,   www.diversifynevada.com.
                                   17, 2015 \1\.        Aerospace &
                                                        Defense Industry
                                                        Representative,
<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>North Dakota Department of        Wednesday,           Brian Opp, Manager,  www.nduas.com.
 Commerce Test Site.               September 23,        Aerospace Business
                                   2015, 1:30pm-        Development, (701)
                                   3:30pm (local),      328-5300,
                                   Alerus Convention<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                   Center, 1200 42nd
                                   Street South,
                                   Grand Forks, ND.
Texas A&M University--Corpus      Friday, September    Jerry Hendrix,       www.lsuasc.tamucc.edu.
 Christi Test Site.                25, 2015, 9am-11am   Chief Engineer
                                   (local),             Texas A&M--Corpus
                                   University Center,   Christi Lone Star
                                   Texas A&M            UAS Center of
                                   University, 6300     Excellence and
                                   Ocean Drive,         Innovation, (361)
                                   Corpus Christi, TX.  825-4104,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Griffiss International Airport    Tuesday, September   Russell Stark,       www.nuairalliance.org.
 Test Site.                        29, 2015, 2pm-4pm    NUAIR Executive
                                   (local), Mohawk      Director, (315)
                                   Valley Community     736-4171,
                                   College, 1101<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                   Sherman Drive,
                                   Payne Hall 331,
                                   Utica, NY.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            UAS Center of Excellence
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mississippi State University....  Tuesday, September   James O. Poss,       www.ASSUREuas.org.
                                   15, 2015, 11:00am-   Executive Director
                                   1:00pm (local),      of ASSURE FAA
                                   First hour           Center of
                                   \2\11:00 am -12:00   Excellence for
                                   pm: Enology Lab,     Unmanned Systems,
                                   130 Foil Road,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
                                   Starkville, MS<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                   Second hour 12:00    edu.
                                   pm-1:00 pm:
                                   Palmeiro Center,
                                   675 Collegeview
                                   St., Starkville,
                                   MS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Time and location are to be determined. Please contact the individual listed as the Point of Contact for
  time and location details.
\2\ Transportation will be provided between the two meeting sites.

Participation at the Public Meetings

    The UAS Test Sites and COE will advertise their respective public
meetings in multiple ways, including but not limited to:

-- Local newspapers and media.
-- Public radio.
-- Social media.
-- University newsletters.
-- Public service announcements.

Public Meeting Procedures

    The UAS Test Sites and COE will host and set the agenda for their
respective meetings. Meetings will be held for two hours. Presenters
and/or panelists will be chosen by the Test Sites/COE and may include
representatives from the Test Sites/COE, their respective research
organization(s), and/or any subject matter experts the Test Sites or
COE designate.
    The meetings will be open to all persons, subject to availability
of space

in the meeting room(s). The Test Sites and COE will make every effort
to accommodate all persons wishing to attend. At a minimum, one
regional FAA representative will be present at each meeting.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 3, 2015.
Stephen M. George,
Acting Assistant Manager, Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Office.
[FR Doc. 2015-19375 Filed 8-3-15; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 128 (Monday, July 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 38489]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16409]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. IC-31698]

Notice of Applications for Deregistration Under Section 8(f) of
the Investment Company Act of 1940

June 26, 2015.
    The following is a notice of applications for deregistration under
section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 for the month of
June 2015. A copy of each application may be obtained via the
Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an
applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. An order granting each
application will be issued unless the SEC orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing on any application by writing to the
SEC's Secretary at the address below and serving the relevant applicant
with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests
should be received by the SEC by 5:30 p.m. on July 21, 2015, and should
be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an
affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to Rule
0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the
writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing
on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested.
Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification
by writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: The Commission: Brent J. Fields, Secretary, U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane L. Titus at<PHONE_NUMBER>, SEC,
Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549-8010.

First Trust Floating Rate High Income Fund [File No. 811-22510]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. Applicant has
never made a public offering of its securities and does not propose to
make a public offering or engage in business of any kind.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on June 17, 2015.
    Applicant's Address: 120 East Liberty Drive, Suite 400, Wheaton, IL
60187.

BlackRock Pennsylvania Strategic Municipal Trust [File No. 811-9417]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. Applicant
transferred its assets to BlackRock MuniYield Pennsylvania Quality
Fund, and effective April 13, 2015, made distributions to its
shareholders based on net asset value. Expenses of approximately
$297,589 incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by
applicant.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on June 11, 2015.
    Applicant's Address: 100 Bellevue Parkway, Wilmington, DE 19809.

Campbell Multi-Strategy Trust [File No. 811-21803]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On June 23,
2015, applicant made a final liquidating distribution to its
shareholders, based on net asset value. Applicant has retained
approximately $2,416,000 in cash and cash equivalent reserves to cover
potential outstanding liabilities in the amount of $2,416,421. Any
reserves not required to pay such liabilities will be distributed to
shareholders. Expenses of approximately $76,289 incurred in connection
with the liquidation were paid by shareholders.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on June 24, 2015.
    Applicant's Address: 2850 Quarry Lake Dr., Baltimore, MD 21209.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-16409 Filed 7-2-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 33 (Tuesday, February 19, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 4891]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02680]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Membership in the National Parks Overflights Advisory Group

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, Transportation.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: By Federal Register notice on July 31, 2018 the National Park
Service (NPS) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) invited
interested persons to apply to fill one current and three future
openings on the National Parks Overflights Advisory Group (NPOAG) to
represent air tour operator concerns, general aviation, and Native
American interests. This notice informs the public of the selection
made for the vacancies representing air tour operator concerns and
Native American interests and invites persons interested in serving on
the NPOAG to apply for current openings representing Native American
concerns and general aviation.

DATES: Persons interested in applying for the NPOAG openings
representing Native American concerns and general aviation interests
need to apply by March 22, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith Lusk, Special Programs Staff,
Federal Aviation Administration, Western-Pacific Region Headquarters,
727 S Aviation Boulevard, Suite #150, El Segundo, CA 90245, telephone:
(424) 405-7017, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 (the Act) was
enacted on April 5, 2000, as Public Law 106-181, and subsequently
amended in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. The Act
required the establishment of the advisory group within one year after
its enactment. The NPOAG was established in March 2001. The advisory
group is comprised of a balanced group of representatives of general
aviation, commercial air tour operations, environmental concerns, and
Native American tribes. The Administrator of the FAA and the Director
of NPS (or their designees) serve as ex officio members of the group.
Representatives of the Administrator and Director serve alternating
one-year terms as chairman of the advisory group.
    In accordance with the Act, the advisory group provides ``advice,
information, and recommendations to the Administrator and the
Director--
    (1) On the implementation of this title [the Act] and the
amendments made by this title;
    (2) On commonly accepted quiet aircraft technology for use in
commercial air tour operations over a national park or tribal lands,
which will receive preferential treatment in a given air tour
management plan;
    (3) On other measures that might be taken to accommodate the
interests of visitors to national parks; and
    (4) At the request of the Administrator and the Director, safety,
environmental, and other issues related to commercial air tour
operations over a national park or tribal lands.''

Membership

    The current NPOAG is made up of one member representing general
aviation, three members representing the commercial air tour industry,
four members representing environmental concerns, and two members
representing Native American interests. Members serve 3-year terms.
Current members of the NPOAG are as follows:
    One open seat to represent general aviation; Eric Lincoln and Matt
Zuccaro representing commercial air tour operators with one open seat;
Les Blomberg, Rob Smith, John Eastman, and Dick Hingson representing
environmental interests; and two open seats to represent Native
American interests.

Selection

    Alan Stephen of Grand Canyon Airlines has been selected for the
current open seat to represent commercial air tour operators. Carl
Slater of the Navajo Nation Division of Transportation has been
selected for one of the current open seats to represent Native American
interests. These NPOAG members 3 year terms commence on the publication
date of this Federal Register notice. No selections were made for the
additional opening to represent Native American interests as well as
general aviation.
    The FAA and NPS invite persons interested in applying for the two
remaining openings on the NPOAG to contact Mr. Keith Lusk (contact
information is written above in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Requests to serve on the NPOAG must be made to Mr. Lusk in writing and
postmarked or emailed on or before March 22, 2019. The request should
indicate whether or not you are a member of an association or group
related to Native American concerns or general aviation or have another
affiliation with issues relating to aircraft flights over national
parks. The request should also state what expertise you would bring to
the NPOAG as related to issues and concerns with aircraft flights over
national parks. The term of service for NPOAG members is 3 years.
Current members may re-apply for another term.
    On August 13, 2014, the Office of Management and Budget issued
revised guidance regarding the prohibition against appointing or not
reappointing federally registered lobbyists to serve on advisory
committees (79 FR 47482).
    Therefore, before appointing an applicant to serve on the NPOAG,
the FAA and NPS will require the prospective candidate to certify that
they are not a federally registered lobbyist.

    Issued in El Segundo, CA, on January 28, 2019.
Keith Lusk
Program Manager, Special Programs Staff, Western-Pacific Region.
[FR Doc. 2019-02680 Filed 2-15-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P