[Federal Register: January 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 9)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 2079-2085]
[DOCID:fr14ja10-9]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0492; FRL-9096-9]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San
Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a limited approval and limited disapproval
of revisions to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
(SJVAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP).
This action was proposed in the Federal Register on July 14, 2009 and
concerns volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from confined animal
facilities, such as dairies, cattle feedlots, and poultry and swine
houses. Under the authority of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990
(CAA or the Act), this action simultaneously approves a local rule that
regulates these emission sources and directs California to correct rule
deficiencies.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on February 16, 2010.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0492 for
this action. The index to the docket is available electronically at
http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the
docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI).
To inspect the

hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal
business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Steckel, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4115<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On July 14, 2009 (74 FR 33948), EPA proposed a limited approval and
limited disapproval of the following rule that the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) submitted for incorporation into the SIP.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Local agency              Rule           Rule title             Adopted         Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SJVAPCD...........................            4570   Confined Animal                  06/18/09         06/26/09
                                                      Facilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed a limited approval because we determined that Rule 4570
improves the SIP and is largely consistent with the relevant CAA
requirements. At the same time, we proposed a limited disapproval
because some rule provisions conflict with section 110 and part D of
the Act. These provisions are discussed briefly below.
    1. Rule 4570 exempts poultry operations between 400,000 and 650,000
chickens; these operations should be subject to the rule as major
sources of VOC emissions.
    2. The rule submittal did not provide adequate analysis to
demonstrate that the rule's control measure menus implement reasonably
available control technologies (RACT) for poultry and swine facilities.
Such an analysis should review the availability and effectiveness of
control measures for poultry and swine facilities, and may require rule
revisions to ensure that the rule does not allow implementation of
relatively ineffective control measures when more effective measures
are reasonably available to a class of operations.
    Our proposed action and Technical Support Document (TSD) contain
more information on the basis for this rulemaking and on our evaluation
of the submittal. The TSD provides examples of the types of concerns
that should be addressed by the analysis discussed in deficiency
2.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we received comments from the parties listed below.
    1. Bill Mattos, President, California Poultry Federation (CPF),
letter dated August 5, 2009.
    2. Seyed Sadredin, Executive Director, SJVAPCD, letter dated August
27, 2009.
    3. Paul Cort, EarthJustice (EJ), letter dated August 31, 2009.
    4. Brent Newell, Legal Director, Center on Race, Poverty & the
Environment (CRPE), letter dated August 31, 2009, on behalf of the
following organizations: Association of Irritated Residents, Clean
Water and Air Matter, Comit[eacute] West Goshen, Comit[eacute] Unido de
Plainview, Comit[eacute] Residentes Organizados al Servicio del
Ambiente Sano, Committee for a Better Arvin, Fresno Metro Ministries,
Natural Resources Defense Council, La Nueva Esperanza de Alpaugh, El
Quinto Sol de America, South Shafter Project Committee, Shafter Chapter
League of United Latin American Citizens, United for a Change in
Tooleville, and La Voz de Tonyville.

A. California Poultry Federation (CPF) Comments

    CPF Comment #1: EPA proposed to postpone deciding whether Rule 4570
implements RACT for dairies and cattle feedlots pending completion of
the National Air Emissions Monitoring Study (NAEMS) research. EPA
should similarly postpone a RACT decision for the poultry industry,
which is also funding and actively participating in the NAEMS.
    Response to CPF #1: The TSD for our proposed action explains that
RACT is not clearly defined for confined animal facilities (CAFs)
because there is limited information and regulation of CAF VOC
emissions. Reflecting this uncertainty, SJVAPCD's RACT demonstration
presented various reasons for why Rule 4570 implements RACT. Our TSD
explains why some of these claims are not relevant and none
definitively demonstrates RACT. We then made decisions based on our
judgment of how the numerous factors, taken together, compare to RACT
policy and precedent.
    For dairies and cattle feedlots, we proposed to defer temporarily a
RACT decision because the NAEMS and related research should help
clarify RACT in the near future. We recognize that ongoing research
should also help clarify RACT for poultry, which is participating in
the NAEMS, too. However, our TSD explains that there are significantly
more shortcomings with SJVAPCD's RACT demonstration for poultry than
for dairy and cattle feedlots. For example, certain major poultry
sources are not covered by the rule. Also, poultry sources have less
variability, have lower control costs, and have other differences as
identified on pages eight and nine of our TSD. While it is unclear at
this time how the NAEMS will impact our understanding of RACT for
dairies and cattle feedlots, it is unlikely that the NAEMS will lead to
a finding that SJVAPCD's existing rule and RACT analysis for poultry is
sufficient. Also, please see our response to EJ comment 7.
    CPF Comment #2: EPA claimed that poultry operations may be less
variable than other CAFs because poultry are generally housed in
buildings. As a result, a few mitigation measures could generally be
applied to the entire class of poultry operations. CPF, however,
comments that poultry operations vary significantly, including among
type of housing, poultry and manure management. Instead of menus, Rule
4570 could require one set of measures for all facilities, or could
list different sets for each type of facility. Neither option would
resolve equity issues of what constitutes RACT for different types of
operations, since controls which are technically and economically
available for one type of operation may not be feasible for others.
    Response to CPF #2: We agree that variability in housing design,
manure management and other factors can affect cost effectiveness of
some VOC controls available to poultry facilities. We do not believe,
however, that either SJVAPCD, or this comment has demonstrated that
industry variability supports the specific Rule 4570 menus. For
example, our TSD notes that table 6B of Rule 4570 provides four options
to perform maintenance every 14 days--remove caked waste, clean under
cages, adjust drinkers and repair pipe leaks. It is not obvious why
industry variability in housing, poultry, manure management or other
factors preclude SJVACPD from evaluating the cost-effectiveness of
these measures and determining whether they

are appropriate to require generally for major types of poultry
operations.
    CPF Comment #3: EPA's TSD raises the issue of controlling VOCs with
biofilters. CPF commented that biofilters are not cost-effective for
existing poultry houses because they would require, among other things,
large biofilters with significant installation, operation and
maintenance costs; as well as, increased ducting, fans, and associated
power needs. Other traditional end-of-stack control measures are
similarly infeasible because of the high exhaust flow rates and low VOC
concentrations.
    Response to CPF #3: Our general objection remains regarding Rule
4570's menus for poultry control measures. As described in paragraph
II.C.2 of our proposed action, the rule submittal did not provide
adequate analysis to demonstrate that the control measure menus
implement RACT for poultry facilities. Such analysis should review the
availability and effectiveness of all control measures (work practices,
add-on controls, etc.) Such analysis may necessitate rule revisions to
ensure that the rule does not allow implementation of relatively
ineffective control measures when more effective measures are
reasonably available to a class of operations. While this comment
provides relevant information on one component of the menus (add-on
controls), SJVAPCD should analyze the menus thoroughly and present that
analysis via their normal public review process.
    CPF Comment #4: The primary source of VOC emissions from poultry is
the microbial decomposition of organic matter in manure, which
increases with moisture. As a result, CPF supports Rule 4570's emphasis
on controlling moisture and microbial decomposition, rather than trying
to remove dilute concentrations of VOC from large volumes of air.
    Response to CPF #4: Our proposed action neither precludes focus on
moisture and microbial decomposition, nor does it require add-on
controls. Rather, it would largely direct SJVAPCD to better analyze the
availability and effectiveness of controls and make appropriate rule
revisions. Additional analysis could show, for example, that one set of
measures for controlling moisture is far more cost-effective than
another set and should be required of all facilities. Also, please see
our response to CPF comment 3.

B. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Comments

    SJVAPCD Comment #1: EPA claimed that Rule 4570 does not address all
10 tpy VOC poultry sources as required. SJVAPCD comments that Rule
4570's threshold is 650,000 chickens. CARB used 0.025 pounds VOC per
head per year (lb VOC/hd/yr) as an emission factor for both broilers
and layers, which translates Rule 4570's applicability to 8 tons per
year (tpy), which is safely below 10 tpy.
    Response to SJVAPCD #1: Table 6 of SJVAPCD's April 16, 2009 RACT
Demonstration and Table 10 of the rule's Staff Report assume 0.05 lb
VOC/hd/year for layers, which translates Rule 4570's applicability to
16.25 tpy, significantly above the 10 tpy threshold. The comment does
not state why or even if SJVAPCD believes this emission factor is no
longer appropriate to use.
    SJVAPCD Comment #2: Rule 4570's menu-approach should be approved as
RACT because the least effective menu options have been incorporated in
facility permits as best available control technology (BACT).
    Response to SJVAPCD #2: Section C.3.g of EPA's TSD explains that
SJVAPCD's BACT determinations help support the argument that Rule 4570
implements RACT, but are not sufficient in and of themselves to
demonstrate RACT generically for three reasons. This comment relates to
the second of these three reasons, item ``b'' as presented in the TSD.
The comment does not, however, address the remaining two points we
presented: (1) BACT determinations consider site-specific factors which
may indicate that specific controls are feasible in one situation, but
not in another; therefore, controls that are BACT for one source may
not be BACT or even RACT for others; and, (2) EPA's lack of comment
regarding BACT in individual permits should not be construed as EPA
concurrence that the rule or the permits implement BACT; we may, for
example, simply have been unable to review the permits because of
competing resource demands.
    SJVAPCD Comment #3: Rule 4570's menu approach should be approved
because, while not compromising control of VOC emissions, it allows CAF
operators to adjust to market driven changes and innovation in
operations to further reduce emissions.
    Response to SJVAPCD #3: EPA agrees that a menu approach can
incorporate elements to address market and innovation needs; however, a
menu-based rule intended to fulfill Federal RACT requirements must be
supported by adequate analysis demonstrating that the menus implement
RACT. Consistent with this position, EPA proposed to postpone a
decision on whether Rule 4570 demonstrates RACT for dairies, beef
feedlots and other cattle facilities. We also concluded that SJVAPCD
had not demonstrated that Rule 4570's menus fulfill RACT for poultry
and swine operations, and therefore proposed to disapprove the rule.
    SJVAPCD Comment #4: Due to variability in poultry operations,
SJVACPD cannot specify only one set of emission control requirements.
Operations vary by capacity, poultry breeds and species, nutrient needs
dictated by market plans, diets that vary by commodity costs, housing
ventilation systems, housing coolant systems, housing construction and
litter management practices.
    Response to SJVAPCD #4: We appreciate that variability in
operations may require different controls or control options for
different types of operations. However, SJVAPCD has not demonstrated
that variability in operations supports the specific Rule 4570 menu
options. Also, please see our response to CPF comment 2.
    SJVAPCD Comment #5: Over time, there could be additional
innovations in how poultry or swine are raised or the market demand for
poultry or swine could change. Rule 4570's menu format allows facility
modifications to take advantage of new opportunities and technological
advances which could result in additional reductions.
    Response to SJVAPCD #5: Please see our response to SJVAPCD comment
3.
    SJVACPD Comment #6: SJVAPCD conducted a top-down BACT analysis of
poultry housing for a permit application and evaluated four traditional
VOC control technologies: thermal oxidizer, catalytic oxidizer, carbon
adsorption and biofilter. These controls were not found achieved in
practice, so SJVAPCD analyzed their cost-effectiveness and found they
failed SJVAPCD's $5,000 per ton VOC threshold. A similar conclusion can
be made for swine. Since traditional add-on control is not cost-
effective for BACT, it is also not cost-effective for RACT.
    Response to SJVAPCD #6: Please see our response to CPF comment
3.
    SJVAPCD Comment #7: SJVAPCD and CARB research adequately justifies
approving Rule 4570 as RACT for California dairies. SJVAPCD developed a
draft BACT document for dairy emissions and is at the forefront of
implementing BACT for new dairies.
    Response to SJVAPCD #7: We appreciate that SJVAPCD and CARB have
supported extensive CAF research before and after developing Rule 4570.
We believe results from the NAEMS and other SJVAPCD, CARB and EPA
research scheduled to conclude soon should help clarify RACT for
California dairies. We also note that this comment

does not provide the referenced draft BACT document for dairy
emissions, nor does it provide further information to address the
generic issues discussed in Section C.3.g of our TSD and above in our
response to SJVAPCD comment 2.

C. EarthJustice (EJ) Comments

    EJ Comment #1: EJ supports EPA's proposed limited approval/
disapproval of Rule 4570 and agrees with the following conclusions from
our proposal: (1) Rule 4570 fails to require controls for all major
poultry operations; (2) SJVAPCD failed to demonstrate that Rule 4570
implements RACT for poultry and swine operations; and, (3) SJVAPCD must
also review the menus for dairy and cattle feedlots.
    Response to EJ #1: We note that our proposed action would
recommend, not compel, item 3 regarding SJVAPCD review of the
dairy and cattle feedlot menus.
    EJ Comment #2: SJVAPCD has not supported its reliance on the
State's large confined animal facility (LCAF) definition in setting
Rule 4570 applicability thresholds. CAA section 172(c)(1) requires all
reasonably available control measures (RACM) as expeditiously as
practicable, so SJVAPCD must analyze and require all reasonable
controls, including those for small sources. Instead, Rule 4570 uses
applicability thresholds based on the State's LCAF definition without
demonstrating that controlling smaller sources is unreasonable. The
LCAF definition is even more inappropriate because SJVAPCD now
estimates higher VOC emissions than assumed by the State (e.g., 11.9
instead of 5.5 lb VOC/hd/yr for cattle).
    Response to EJ #2: We agree that CAA section 182(b)(2) requires
RACT for all major sources and CAA section 172(c)(1) requires the
implementation of all RACM as needed for expeditious attainment. A
discussion of whether additional controls would advance the attainment
date of the ozone standard belongs in the context of SJVAPCD's ozone
plan attainment demonstration. Today's action on Rule 4570 considers
whether the rule as submitted is adequately enforceable, implements
RACT and improves the SIP. The emission factor assumptions from
SJVACPD's RACT demonstration suggest that Rule 4570's applicability
thresholds capture all major sources except for the poultry threshold
identified as deficient in our proposed action.
    EJ Comment #3: SJVAPCD must, but did not, show that all Rule 4570
menus represent the lowest emission levels achievable as required by
RACT.
    Response to EJ #3: We believe this comment is addressed by our
proposed action to defer a RACT decision for dairies and cattle
feedlots and to require adequate analysis to demonstrate that Rule 4570
implements RACT for poultry and swine. We agree that SJVAPCD must
review the availability and effectiveness of controls to address the
RACT deficiency we identified concerning poultry and swine sources.
    EJ Comment #4: SJVAPCD uses a ``percent of profits'' test to
determine whether controls are economically feasible. For example,
SJVAPCD claims that Rule 4570 will cost large dairies 9.6% of profits,
so more stringent and expensive controls are not reasonably available.
EJ comments that some industries can afford controls costing 10% of
profits or more without impacting economic viability. EJ believes
SJVAPCD should analyze possible CAF controls in a broader context, such
as total compliance cost, economic impact on each sector of the
industry, output demand elasticity, etc.
    Response to EJ #4: Paragraph II.C.2. of our proposed action states
that SJVAPCD has not adequately demonstrated that Rule 4570 implements
RACT, and directs SJVAPCD to analyze the availability and effectiveness
of possible controls for poultry and swine sources. The comment does
not dispute this or other portions of our proposal, but provides more
detail on how EJ believes the deficiency should be corrected. As a
result, no changes to our proposal are needed. Regarding the substance
of the comment, we believe ``percent of profits'' can provide useful
information, but we also acknowledge that additional economic
information could be helpful and appreciate that resource constraints
limit the amount of analysis that SJVAPCD can perform. Also, we note
that SJVAPCD has provided cost-effectiveness information in Appendix C
of their Staff Report. We look forward to working with EJ, SJVAPCD and
the affected industry to obtain a meaningful RACT analysis without
overwhelming available SJVAPCD resources.
    EJ Comment #5: EPA must appropriately revise 40 CFR 52.220(b)(12)
to remove any possible claim that agricultural sources are exempt from
permitting.
    Response to EJ #5: Section 5.0 of Rule 4570 specifically requires a
permit application for each CAF, and Section 5.4 requires
implementation of all VOC emission mitigation measures, as contained in
the application, on and after 365 days of submittal of the application.
Therefore, to the extent that any such permitting exemption exists, it
does not affect implementation of Rule 4570.
    EJ Comment #6: Sections 5.12 and 5.13 of Rule 4570 allow facilities
to ignore all specific requirements of sections 5.6 through 5.10 by
preparing an alternative emission mitigation plan (AEMP) demonstrating
30% facility-wide reductions. EJ believes these plans are unenforceable
because Rule 4570 provides no detail on how 30% is calculated or the
plans approved. EJ also comments that SJVAPCD has not demonstrated that
30% represents RACT, particularly since SJVAPCD projects that the menus
reduce emissions 36-72%.
    Response to EJ #6: Because there is limited information available
on CAF control efficiencies, we proposed to recommend, rather than
compel, rule revisions at this time (see recommendation 6 on
page 10 of our TSD). Similar directors' discretion provisions have been
approved in other rules (e.g., SJVAPCD Rule 4550 regarding agricultural
operations) where agencies have limited experience in quantifying
emission impacts. Implementation of Rule 4570 and other CAF
requirements and ongoing research should improve our understanding so
that details for AEMPs in section 5.13 can be reasonably required in
the near future. We also proposed to recommend rather than compel
revising section 5.13's 30% emission reduction target consistent with
the 36-72% menu-based emission projections (see recommendation
7 on page 10 of our TSD). We do not believe we have clear
authority to compel changes to section 5.12 at this time, as it does
not appear to apply to any major sources.
    EJ Comment #7: EPA's proposal to postpone a decision on whether
Rule 4570 implements RACT for dairies and beef feedlots is arbitrary
and illegal under CAA section 110(k)(3). EPA claims the delay is
appropriate pending results of an ongoing study, but EPA is required to
act now based on the best available information. Regardless of the
study results, Rule 4570's dairy and cattle feedlot provisions suffer
from the same RACT defects as the poultry and swine provisions that EPA
is disapproving.
    Response to EJ #7: As we discussed in our response to CPF comment
1, we acknowledged deficiencies in the RACT demonstration for
dairies and cattle feedlots, but proposed to defer temporarily a RACT
decision because the NAEMS and related research should help clarify
RACT in the near future. While we recognized that ongoing

research should also help clarify RACT for poultry and swine, our TSD
explained that there are significantly more shortcomings with SJVAPCD's
RACT demonstration for poultry and swine operations. As a result, while
it is unclear how the NAEMS results will impact our understanding of
RACT for dairies and cattle feedlots, it seems very unlikely that the
NAEMS will lead to a finding that SJVAPCD's existing rule and RACT
analysis for poultry and swine is sufficient. Also, please see our
response to CPF comment 1.
    EJ Comment #8: If EPA finalizes no action on dairy and cattle
feedlot measures, EPA should appropriately discount the emission
reduction benefits that are claimed for Rule 4570 in various attainment
plans.
    Response to EJ #8: If finalized as proposed, EPA's action would
incorporate all provisions of Rule 4570 into the Federally enforceable
SIP. EPA's action to disapprove and postpone various RACT
demonstrations does not interfere with Federal or local rule
implementation. Issues regarding the emission reductions attributed to
Rule 4570 do not affect the basis for our action on the rule and should
be addressed in context of our action on SJVAPCD's one-hour ozone plan.

D. Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment (CRPE) Comments

    CRPE Comment #1: EPA should disapprove the RACT determination for
dairies and cattle feedlots. There is no hard deadline for EPA to
promulgate emission estimating methodologies referenced in the proposed
action, so EPA may further delay a RACT determination beyond November
2011. In any case, available information already shows that dairies and
cattle feedlots are significant VOC sources that require RACT.
    Response to CRPE #1: We agree that some cattle and dairy operations
are significant VOC sources that require RACT. We believe, however,
that delaying a RACT determination for dairies and cattle feedlots is
justified for reasons we discussed in Section D.3 of our TSD. All data
collection efforts for the NAEMS are scheduled to conclude by May 2010
and we plan to promulgate emission estimating tools by November 2011.
Nonetheless, we could require additional demonstration of RACT
regarding dairies and cattle feedlots based on preliminary NAEMS data,
unexpected delays, or other factors before or after November 2011
pursuant to CAA section 179(a)(1) and elsewhere. During this period of
NAEMS data collection and analysis, we emphasize that the rule's
requirements will continue to be implemented and enforced, and, as a
result, continue to reduce VOC emissions from dairies and cattle
feedlots. Also, please see our response to EJ comment 7.
    CRPE Comment #2: Rule 4570's menu-based strategy violates CAA RACT
provisions which require the lowest emission limitation that sources
can meet considering technological and economic feasibility. Rule 4570
does not require all RACT, but merely a handful of measures from among
several dozen. SJVAPCD concedes that operations can and will select the
least-costly options, which are not necessarily the most effective, as
RACT requires, at reducing emissions.
    Response to CRPE #2: Menu-based rules can fulfill the RACT
requirement if the menus effectively require the lowest emission
limitations that sources can meet considering technological and
economic feasibility. However, the deficiency identified in paragraph
II.C.2 of our proposal reflects our agreement with the comment that
SJVAPCD has not demonstrated that Rule 4570 meets RACT for poultry and
swine menus. We are deferring our decision as to whether Rule 4570
meets RACT for dairy and beef cattle operations. Also, please see our
response to EJ comment 3.
    CRPE Comment #3: SJVAPCD improperly inflates the control
effectiveness of Rule 4570 by claiming a 10% emission reduction for
feeding cows by NRC guidelines both in the baseline emission estimates
and then again in emission reductions associated with Rule 4570.
    Response to CRPE #3: Today's action on Rule 4570 rests primarily on
whether the rule as submitted is adequately enforceable, implements
RACT and improves the SIP. Issues regarding the amount of associated
emission reductions do not affect the basis for our action on Rule 4570
and are addressed within our action on SJVAPCD's one-hour ozone plan.
    CRPE Comment #4: Rule 4570 merely codifies existing voluntary
practices and does not generate real and quantifiable emission
reductions. This violates CAA requirements for SIP rules to reduce
emissions. EPA approval of this rule would be arbitrary and capricious
because the emission reduction estimates for the vast majority of
controls have no factual support.
    Response to CRPE #4: Please see our response to CRPE comment
3.
    CRPE Comment #5: EPA should disapprove the RACT demonstration for
dairies and cattle feedlots and not allow SJVAPCD's 2004 SIP to take
credit for VOC reductions from Rule 4570.
    Response to CRPE #5: Please see our responses to previous CRPE
comments.
    Additional CRPE Comments: CRPE's August 31, 2009 letter provided
comments on EPA's proposed actions on Rule 4570 (Docket No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2009-0492) and on the SJVAPCD One-Hour Ozone Plan (Docket No. EPA-
R09-OAR-2008-0693). CRPE comments that were not addressed above are
primarily relevant to our proposed action on the SJVAPCD One-Hour Ozone
Plan. We direct interested readers to those comments and our responses
in our final action on the ozone plan.

III. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the rule
as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as authorized in
sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is finalizing a limited
approval of the submitted rule. This action incorporates the submitted
rule into the California SIP, including those provisions identified as
deficient. As authorized under section 110(k)(3), EPA is simultaneously
finalizing a limited disapproval of the rule. As a result, sanctions
will be imposed unless EPA approves subsequent SIP revisions that
correct the rule deficiencies within 18 months of the effective date of
this action. These sanctions will be imposed under section 179 of the
Act according to 40 CFR 52.31. In addition, EPA must promulgate a
Federal implementation plan (FIP) under section 110(c) unless we
approve subsequent SIP revisions that correct the rule deficiencies
within 24 months. Note that the submitted rule has been adopted by the
SJVAPCD, and EPA's final limited disapproval does not prevent the local
agency from enforcing it.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.''

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the
agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities
include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because SIP approvals and limited approvals/
limited disapprovals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the
Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve
requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because
this limited approval/limited disapproval action does not create any
new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under
the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State action. The
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such
grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or Tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the limited approval/limited disapproval
action promulgated does not include a Federal mandate that may result
in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or
Tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This
Federal action approves pre-existing requirements under State or local
law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs
to State, local, or Tribal governments, or to the private sector,
result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that 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.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule 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, because it
merely approves a State rule implementing a Federal standard, and does
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this
rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by Tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have Tribal implications.'' This final rule does not have
Tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not
have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian Tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian Tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it approves a
State rule implementing a Federal standard.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    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.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.
    The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to
the use of VCS.

J. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 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 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. 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). This rule will be effective on February 16, 2010.

K. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 15, 2010. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: December 11, 2009.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

0
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(368) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (368) New and amended regulations were submitted on June 26, 2009
by the Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by Reference.
    (A) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Rule 4570, ``Confined Animal Facilities,'' adopted on June 18,
2009.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2010-489 Filed 1-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 9 (Thursday, January 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3229-3230]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00369]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[FAA-2021-0007]

Notice of Availability of the Las Vegas Metroplex Project Written
Re-Evaluation/Record of Decision for Changes to the Final Environmental
Assessment Designs

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

ACTION: Notice of availability of the Written Re-evaluation/Record of
Decision (WR/ROD).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public that it
has issued a WR/ROD for changes to the Las Vegas Metroplex Project
Final Environmental Assessment (EA) Design for five flight procedures.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Sturnfield, Operations Support
Group, Northwest Mountain Regional Office, Federal Aviation
Administration, 2200 216th Street, Des Moines, Washington 98198;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 17, 2020, the FAA published in the
Federal Register notice of the availability of a Finding of No
Significant Impact and Record of Decision (FONSI/ROD) for the Las Vegas
Metroplex (LAS Metroplex) Final EA. The designs for five proposed
procedures analyzed in the Final EA and approved for implementation in
the FONSI/ROD require changes to comply with FAA safety criteria. This
notice refers to these changes as the ``Design Changes.''
    Four of the Design Changes are to the designs of procedures at
McCarran International Airport (KLAS): (1) HOOVER SEVEN Standard
Instrument Departure (SID), (2) Area Navigation (RNAV) (Required
Navigation Performance [RNP]) Z Runway (RWY) 19R approach, (3) RNAV
(Global Positioning System [GPS]) Y RWY 19R approach, and (4) RNAV
(RNP) Z RWY

19L approach. The fifth change is to the design of a procedure at
nearby Henderson Executive Airport (KHND), the GAMES Standard Terminal
Arrival Route (STAR).
    To determine whether the Design Changes require supplementation of
the Final EA, the FAA has analyzed the potential environmental effects
from the Design Changes, consistent with FAA Order 1050.1F, Paragraph
9-2.c.(1), to determine whether the changes to the Final EA Design
would be ``substantial'' and ``relevant to environmental concerns,''
i.e., ``paint[s] a dramatically different picture of impacts compared
to the description of impacts in the [Final] EA'' (id., Paragraph 9-3).
The FAA's analysis and determination are documented in a WR/ROD dated
December 21, 2020. The WR/ROD analyzes the same environmental impact
categories analyzed in the Final EA.
    As documented in the WR/ROD, the FAA has determined that the Design
Changes are not a substantial change in the FAA's proposed action, as
analyzed in the Final EA for the Las Vegas Metroplex Project and
approved in the FONSI/ROD, relevant to environmental concerns. The data
and analyses contained in the Final EA and FONSI/ROD are still
substantially valid and there are no significant new circumstances or
information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the
proposed action or its impacts. Accordingly, the WR/ROD also documents
the FAA's decision not to prepare a supplement to the Final EA.
    The WR/ROD is publicly available at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/community_involvement/las/ and http://www.metroplexenvironmental.com/las_metroplex/las_docs.html.

    Issued in Des Moines, WA, on January 6, 2021.
Byron Chew,
Acting Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2021-00369 Filed 1-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">

<META name="generator" content="PDFCreactiveX HTML Export">
<META name="creation-date" content="10/03/2010 12:36:06 ">
<TITLE></TITLE>


	SIP SUBMITTAL COMPLETENESS CRITERIA CHECKLIST

	(in accordance with 40 CFR Part 51 - App. V)

   SIP Submitted by:	Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP)

     Date Submitted:     December 17, 2007

            Subject:

Completeness Review   /s/

Completed by:             Gregory Becoat

     Date Completed:     January 24, 2008

Administrative Materials

	ACCEPTABLE

	EPA REQUIREMENT

	STATE SUBMITTAL

(X)

1. A formal letter of submittal from the Governor or his designee, requesting EPA approval of the plan or revision thereof.

1.  Letter was submitted on December 17, 2007 on behalf of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from Kathleen McGinty, Secretary, PADEP, to Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, EPA Region III.

X

2. Evidence that the State has adopted the plan in the State code or body of regulations; or issued the permit, order, consent agreement in final form.  That evidence shall include the date of adoption or final issuance as well as the effective date of the plan, if different from the adoption/issuance date.

2. N/A – Not a regulatory change.  The submittal is a request for full approval of a 110(a)(1) 8-hour ozone maintenance plan and 2002 base-year inventory that is effective November 2007.

X

3. Evidence that the State has the necessary legal authority under State law to adopt and implement the plan.

3.  State has legal authority to adopt this maintenance plan under Section 5 of the Air Pollution Control Act

X

4. A copy of actual regulation, or document submitted for approval and incorporation by reference into the plan, including indication of the changes made to the existing approved plan, where applicable.  The submittal shall be a copy of the official State regulation/document signed, stamped, dated by the appropriate State official indicating that it is fully enforceable by the State.  The effective date of the regulation/document shall, whenever possible, be indicated in the document itself.

4.  N/A See number 2 above.

X

5. Evidence that the State followed all of the procedural requirements of the State's laws and constitution in conducting and completing the adoption/issuance of the plan.

5.  N/A

X

6. Evidence that public notice was given of the proposed change consistent with procedures approved by EPA, including the date of publication of such notice.

6.  PADEP provided proof that the notice of public hearing was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on Saturday, October 13, 2007.

X

7. Certification that public hearings were held in accordance with the information provided in the public notice and the State's laws and constitution, if applicable.

7. Notice of public hearing was given to the public in Daily American on Saturday, October 13, 2007.

X

8. Compilation of public comments and the State's response thereto.

8.  No written comments were received so a comment/response document was not developed.

X

1. Identification of all regulated pollutants affected by the plan.

1.  8-Hour Ozone

X

2. Identification of the locations of affected sources including the EPA attainment/nonattainment designation of the locations and the status of the attainment plan for the affected area(s).

2.  Applies to the Somerset County, Pennsylvania 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Area.

X

3. Quantification of the changes in plan allowable emissions from the affected sources; estimates of changes in current actual emissions from affected sources or, where appropriate, quantification of changes in actual emissions from affected sources through calculations of the differences between certain baseline levels and allowable emissions anticipated as a result of the revision.

3.  A 2002 base-year emissions inventory was submitted along with a maintenance plan as SIP revisions.  Attainment inventory and projected inventories were also submitted in the maintenance plan.

X

4. The State's demonstration that the national ambient air quality standards, prevention of significant deterioration increments, reasonable further progress demonstration, and visibility, as applicable, are protected if the plan is approved and implemented.

4.  The state has developed a current and projected (2002, 2009, 2018) emissions inventory showing how the NAAQS will be protected since emission levels are expected to remain at or below the levels needed for attainment.

X

5. Modeling information required to support the proposed revision, including input data, output data, models used,  ambient monitoring data used, meteorological data used, justification for use of offsite data (where used), modes of models used, assumptions, and other information relevant to the determination of adequacy of the modeling analysis.

5.  All data and evidence is present for this action.

X

6. Evidence, where necessary, that emission limitations are based on continuous emission reduction technology.

6.  N/A

X

7. Evidence that the plan contains emission limitations, work practice standards and recordkeeping/reporting requirements, where necessary, to ensure emission levels.

7.  Evidence is shown that PADEP will do periodic emission inventory updates and analysis.

X

8. Compliance/enforcement strategies, including how compliance will be determined in practice.

8.  PADEP has provided assurances that it will continue to operate the ambient air quality monitoring network in the Commonwealth, and evaluate emissions inventories periodically compared to the projections provided in the plan.  If an exceedance or growth in the emissions inventory occurs, contingency measures will be activated.

X

9. Special economic and technological justifications required by any applicable EPA policies. (If a policy is not appropriate, explain why.)

9.  N/A

X

10. A Section 107 request must be accompanied by a maintenance plan demonstrating maintenance to the relevant NAAQS for at least 10 years after redesignation.

10.  The Maintenance Plan was submitted to EPA Region II on December 17, 2007.  This plan demonstrates maintenance through the year 2018.

X


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 29 (Friday, February 11, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7707-7712]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2405]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0982; FRL-8859-6]

Fludioxonil; Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a time-limited tolerance for
residues of fludioxonil in or on pineapple. This action is in response
to EPA's granting of an emergency exemption under section 18 of the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) authorizing
use of the pesticide on pineapple. This regulation establishes a
maximum permissible level for residues of fludioxonil in or on this
commodity. The time-limited tolerance expires on December 31, 2013.

DATES: This regulation is effective February 11, 2011. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before April 12, 2011, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0982. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available in http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrea Conrath, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail 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.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

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

    Under section 408(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect
of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections.
You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in
accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure
proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2010-0982 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 April 12, 2011. 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 that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2
may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit a copy of
your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0982, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    EPA, on its own initiative, in accordance with sections 408(e) and
408(l)(6) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(e) and 346a(1)(6), is establishing a
time-limited tolerance for residues of fludioxonil, (4-(2,2-difluoro-
1,3-benzodioxol-4-yl)-1H-pyrrole-3-carbonitrile), in or on pineapple at
13 parts per million (ppm). This time-limited tolerance expires on
December 31, 2013.
    Section 408(l)(6) of FFDCA requires EPA to establish a time-limited
tolerance or exemption from the requirement for a tolerance for
pesticide chemical residues in food that will result from the use of a
pesticide under an emergency exemption granted by EPA under section 18
of FIFRA. Such tolerances can be established without providing notice
or period for public comment. EPA does not intend for its actions on
FIFRA section 18 related time-limited tolerances to set binding
precedents for the application of section 408 of FFDCA and the safety
standard to other tolerances and exemptions. Section 408(e) of FFDCA
allows EPA to establish a tolerance or an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance on its own initiative, i.e., without having
received any petition from an outside party.
    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. * *
*''
    Section 18 of FIFRA authorizes EPA to exempt any Federal or State
agency from any provision of FIFRA, if EPA determines that ``emergency
conditions exist which require such exemption.'' EPA has established
regulations governing such emergency exemptions in 40 CFR part 166.

III. Emergency Exemption for Fludioxonil on Pineapple and FFDCA
Tolerances

    The applicant stated that unforeseen changes in available options
for shipping Hawaiian pineapple to the mainland of the United States
resulted in increased storage and transport time for the fruit. The
overall increased shipment time is allowing surface molds to become
established, which is leading to rejection, downgrading, or dumping of
the unacceptable fruit. The Applicant stated that because of this
unanticipated situation, an emergency situation exists, with
significant economic losses suffered. Further, the Applicant asserts
that without a suitable fungicide, such as fludioxonil, to address this
issue, the future viability of the pineapple industry in Hawaii is
threatened.
    After having reviewed the submission, EPA determined that an
emergency condition exists for this State, and that the criteria for
approval of an emergency exemption are met. EPA has authorized a
specific exemption under FIFRA section 18 for the use of fludioxonil on
Hawaiian pineapple for control of surface molds.
    As part of its evaluation of the emergency exemption application,
EPA assessed the potential risks presented by residues of fludioxonil
in or on pineapple. In doing so, EPA considered the safety standard in
section 408(b)(2) of FFDCA, and EPA decided that the necessary
tolerance under section 408(l)(6) of FFDCA would be consistent with the
safety standard and with FIFRA section 18. Consistent with the need to
move quickly on the emergency exemption in order to address an urgent
non-routine situation and to ensure that the resulting food is safe and
lawful, EPA is issuing this tolerance without notice and opportunity
for public comment as provided in section 408(l)(6) of FFDCA. Although
this time-limited tolerance expires on December 31, 2013, under section
408(l)(5) of FFDCA, residues of the pesticide not in excess of the
amount specified in the tolerance remaining in or on pineapple after
that date will not be unlawful, provided the pesticide was applied in a
manner that was lawful under FIFRA, and the residues do not exceed a
level that was authorized by this time-limited tolerance at the time of
that application. EPA will take action to revoke this time-limited
tolerance earlier if any experience with, scientific data on, or other
relevant information on this pesticide indicate that the residues are
not safe.
    Because this time-limited tolerance is being approved under
emergency conditions, EPA has not made any decisions about whether
fludioxonil meets FIFRA's registration requirements for use on
pineapple or whether a permanent tolerance for this use would be
appropriate. Under these circumstances, EPA does not believe that this
time-limited tolerance decision serves as a basis for registration of
fludioxonil by a State for special local needs under FIFRA section
24(c). Nor does this tolerance by itself serve as the authority for
persons in any State other than Hawaii to use this pesticide on the
applicable crops under FIFRA section 18 absent the issuance of an
emergency exemption applicable within that State. For additional
information regarding the emergency exemption for fludioxonil, contact
the Agency's Registration Division at the address provided under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Consistent with the factors specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of
FFDCA, 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 expected as a result of this emergency exemption request and
the time-limited tolerance for residues of fludioxonil on pineapple at

13 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with
establishing the time-limited tolerance follows.

A. 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 (LOC) 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 level at which no adverse effects are observed (the
NOAEL) and the lowest level 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 fludioxonil used for
human risk assessment can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in
document ``Fludioxonil. Human Health Risk assessment for a Section 18
Emergency Tolerance on Pineapple,'' dated August 4, 2010, p. 23-24 in
Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0982.

B. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to fludioxonil, EPA considered exposure under the time-limited
tolerance established by this action as well as all existing
fludioxonil tolerances in 40 CFR 180.516. EPA assessed dietary
exposures from fludioxonil in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Adverse effects from acute exposure were
identified for fludioxonil for the population subgroup females 13-49
years old. The acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) is set at 1.0
milligrams/kilograms/day (mg/kg/day) based upon acute effects of
increased incidence of fetuses and litters with dilated renal pelvis
and dilated ureter seen in the rat developmental study. In estimating
acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide
Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue
levels in food, EPA conducted an acute dietary assessment assuming
established and proposed tolerance-level residues for all commodities
and default 100 percent crop treated (PCT) information for the
population subgroup females 13-49 years old. No anticipated residue or
estimated PCT data were used. The estimated peak drinking water
concentration of 108 parts per billion (ppb) was directly incorporated
into the acute risk assessment. There were no significant toxicological
effects attributable to a single exposure (dose) for the general
population or any other population subgroups; therefore these
populations' subgroups were not included in this assessment. For food
and drinking water, the exposure to females 13-49 years old (the only
population subgroup demonstrating acute effects) utilized 15% of the
aPAD at the 95th percentile of exposure distribution.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996
and 1998 CSFII. As to residue levels in food, EPA conducted a chronic
dietary assessment assuming established and proposed tolerance-level
residues with the exception of the following: Anticipated residues
(ARs) were generated for apple, grapefruit, lemon, lime, orange, pear,
tomato, lettuce (head and leaf), fresh parsley, Brassica leafy
vegetables (crop group 5), grape, cherry, peach, and plum based upon
field trial data. Empirical processing factors were determined from
processing studies for the juices of tomato, apple, grapefruit, lemon,
lime, grape, and orange, and for raisins; default processing factors
were used in all other instances. No PCT data were used (100% crop
treated was assumed). The estimated chronic drinking water
concentration of 53 ppb was directly incorporated into the assessment.
Food and water consumption were compared to the chronic population
adjusted dose (cPAD) of 0.03 mg/kg/day, which is based upon the chronic
effect of decreased weight gain in females seen in the 1-year dog
feeding study. For food and water consumption, the chronic exposure to
fludioxonil utilized 26% of the cPAD for the general U.S. population
and 88% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the most highly exposed
population subgroup.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the available data, EPA has determined that
fludioxonil is a ``Group D'' chemical, not classifiable as to human
carcinogenicity, and poses a negligible cancer risk. Cancer studies
with fludioxonil only showed marginal evidence of cancer in one sex of
one species. There was no evidence of carcinogenicity in mice when
tested up to the highest dose of 7,000 ppm. There was no evidence of
carcinogenicity in male rats, but there was a statistically significant
increase, both trend and pairwise, of combined hepatocellular tumors in
female rats. The pairwise increase for combined tumors was
statistically significant, but only at p=0.03, which is not a strong
indication of a positive effect. Further, statistical significance was
only found when liver adenomas were combined with liver carcinomas.
Finally, the increase in these tumors was within, but at the high end,
of the historical controls. Fludioxonil was not mutagenic in the tests
for gene mutations. However, based on the induction of polyploidy in
the in vitro Chinese hamster ovary cell cytogenetic assay and the
suggestive evidence of micronuclei induction in rat hepatocytes in
vivo, additional mutagenicity testing was performed in three studies
specifically designed to address the concerns regarding aneuploidy. The
results of these assays were negative for aneuploidy activity.
Therefore, the Agency concluded that a dietary exposure assessment for
assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA did not use PCT
information in the dietary assessment for fludioxonil. One hundred
percent of the pineapple crop was assumed treated.
    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 section 408(f)(1) of FFDCA 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 section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA and authorized under
section 408(f)(1) of FFDCA. Data will be required to be submitted no
later than 5 years from the date of issuance of these tolerances.

    Anticipated residue data were used in the chronic (non-cancer)
dietary risk analyses but not in the acute dietary risk analysis. For
certain tolerances, the anticipated residue values were determined from
the field trial studies. Additionally, results of processed commodities
studies show that fludioxonil residues do not concentrate to the extent
that the existing crop tolerances would be exceeded.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for fludioxonil in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of fludioxonil. 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 First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) and
Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the
estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of fludioxonil for
acute exposures are estimated to be 108 ppb for surface water and 0.4
ppb for ground water. The EDWCs for chronic exposures for non-cancer
assessments are estimated to be 53 ppb for surface water and 0.4 ppb
for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure models. For acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 108 ppb was used to assess
the contribution of fludioxonil from drinking water. For chronic
dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 53 ppb was
used to assess the contribution of fludioxonil from 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).
    Fludioxonil is currently registered for the following uses that
could result in residential exposures: Residential turf and ornamental
use, restricted to commercial applicators only. EPA assessed
residential exposure using the following assumptions: The use on
pineapple discussed in this document does not result in any residential
non-occupational exposures. Since there are no short- or intermediate-
term dermal toxicity endpoints for fludioxonil, only a toddler post-
application assessment for incidental ingestion exposures to treated
lawns was conducted (for all child/infant subgroups). The combined
short-term oral exposure risk estimate, which includes hand-to-mouth,
object-to-mouth and soil ingestion pathways, was determined to be 0.013
mg/kg bw/day, while the intermediate-term was determined to be 0.0074
milligrams/kilograms of bodyweight/day (mg/kg bw/day). It should be
noted that each of the incidental oral assessments (i.e., hand-to-
mouth, object-to-mouth and soil ingestion) are considered conservative.
Therefore, combining all the assessments is expected to provide a
highly conservative assessment of children's incidental oral exposure.
    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 fludioxonil to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and fludioxonil does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
fludioxonil 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.

C. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA, as modified by the
Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), 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 SF when reliable data available to EPA
support the choice of a different factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There was no quantitative or
qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility following in utero
exposure of rats and rabbits or following prenatal/postnatal exposure
of rats. In the developmental study in rats, there was an increase in
the number of fetuses and litters with dilated renal pelvis and dilated
ureter, as well as a reduction in maternal body weight gain, at the
lowest observed adverse effect level. The developmental effect was
considered to be related to maternal toxicity rather than an indication
of increased susceptibility. Since the developmental effects occurred
at the same exposure levels that caused maternal effects, no evidence
of increased susceptibility in rats was demonstrated from the
developmental study. In the 2-generation rat reproduction study,
offspring toxicity was seen at the dose that produced parental
(maternal) toxicity. The maternal toxicity was manifested as increased
clinical signs, decreased body weight, body weight gain and food
consumption. Fetal toxicity was manifested as decreased weight gain in
pups. Since developmental effects occurred at the same exposure levels
that caused maternal effects, maternal and fetal toxicity were
comparable, and it was concluded that there is no increased
susceptibility indicated by results from the 2-generation reproduction
study. In rabbits, no developmental toxicity was seen up to the highest
dose tested which demonstrated maternal toxicity, and therefore it is
concluded that there is no evidence of increased susceptibility
demonstrated in rabbits.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show that 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. There are no residual uncertainties in the toxicity database.
Existing data are sufficient for endpoint selection for exposure/risk
assessment. The fludioxonil toxicity database is complete with the
exception of an immunotoxicity study, and acute and subchronic
neurotoxicity studies. The immunotoxicity and acute and subchronic
neurotoxicity studies are now required by new data requirements for
conventional pesticide registration (40 CFR part 158). The available
data do not show potential for neurotoxicity or immunotoxicity. The
overall weight-of-evidence suggests that fludioxonil does not directly
target the immune system. Further, there is no evidence of

neurotoxicity or neuropathology in the fludioxonil database. Therefore,
the Agency does not believe that the immunotoxicity and acute and
chronic neurotoxicity studies will result in a lower POD than that
currently in use for overall risk assessment. Thus, the Agency believes
that a database uncertainty factor is not needed to account for lack of
these studies.
    ii. There is no indication that fludioxonil is a neurotoxic
chemical and therefore EPA finds no need for a developmental
neurotoxicity study or additional uncertainty factors (UFs) to account
for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence that fludioxonil results in increased
susceptibility of in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats 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, tolerance-level residues, and anticipated residues as
follows: Anticipated residue values for apple, grapefruit, lemon, lime,
orange, pear, tomato, head lettuce, leaf lettuce, grape, cherry, peach,
and plum were generated from field trials; anticipated residues were
also determined from processing studies for raisins, and for the juice
of apple, grape, grapefruit, lemon, lime, orange and tomato. These data
are reliable and will not underestimate the exposure and risk. EPA made
conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water
modeling used to assess exposure to fludioxonil in drinking water. EPA
used similarly conservative assumptions to assess postapplication
exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers.
These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed
by fludioxonil.

D. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
aPAD and 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. Based on the explanation in Unit IV.B.3, regarding
residential use patterns, acute residential exposure to residues of
fludioxonil is not expected. Therefore, since the acute aggregate risk
assessment only includes exposure from food and water, no further
calculations are necessary beyond the acute dietary analysis. There
were no significant toxicological effects attributable to a single
exposure (dose) for the general population or any other population
subgroups; therefore these population subgroups were not included in
this assessment. An acute dietary assessment was therefore conducted
for the population subgroup females 13-49 years old. Using the exposure
assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute
aggregate exposure (food and water) to fludioxonil will occupy 15% of
the aPAD for females 13-49 years old.
    2. Chronic risk. Based on the explanation in IV.B.3, unit regarding
residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of
fludioxonil is not expected. Therefore, since the chronic aggregate
risk assessment only includes exposure from food and water, no further
calculations are necessary beyond the chronic dietary analysis. Using
the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure,
EPA has concluded that chronic aggregate exposure to fludioxonil (food
and water) utilized 88% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the
population subgroup receiving the greatest exposure. For the U.S.
population the chronic aggregate exposure (food and water) utilized 26%
of the cPAD.
    3. Short- and intermediate-term risk. Short- and intermediate-term
aggregate exposure takes into account residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level).
    Fludioxonil is currently registered for uses that could result in
short- and intermediate-term residential exposure and the Agency has
determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through
food and water with short- and intermediate-term residential exposures
to fludioxonil. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit
for short- and intermediate-term exposures, EPA has concluded that
combined short- and intermediate-term food, water, and residential
exposures result in aggregate MOEs for the most highly exposed
subgroup, children 1-2 years old, of 250 for short-term exposures and
100 for intermediate-term exposures. Because EPA's level of concern for
fludioxonil is a MOE of less than 100, these MOEs are not of concern.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Fludioxonil is
classified as a ``Group D'' chemical, as discussed previously, and not
classifiable as to human carcinogenicity. However, EPA expects the
cancer risk of fludioxonil to be negligible.
    5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children, from aggregate
exposure to fludioxonil residues.

V. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An adequate enforcement methodology (high-pressure liquid
chromatography method AG-597B) 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>; e-mail 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 section
408(b)(4) of FFDCA. The Codex Alimentarius is a joint U.N. 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, section 408(b)(4) of FFDCA requires that EPA
explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established a MRL for fludioxonil on pineapple.

VI. Conclusion

    For the reasons described above, a time-limited tolerance is
established for residues of fludioxonil, (4-(2,2-difluoro-1,3-
benzodioxol-4-yl)-1H-pyrrole-3-carbonitrile), in or on pineapple at 13
ppm. This tolerance expires on December 31, 2013.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a time-limited tolerance under sections
408(e) and 408(l)(6) of FFDCA. 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 in accordance
with sections 408(e) and 408(l)(6) of FFDCA, 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 section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. 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) (Pub. L. 104-4).
    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), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

VIII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. 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 this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule 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: January 24, 2011.
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. Section 180.516 is amended by alphabetically adding ``pineapple'' to
the table in paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  [emsp14]180.516  Fludioxonil; tolerances for residues.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Expiration/
                  Commodity                    Parts per    revocation
                                                million        date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pineapple...................................          13        12/31/13

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-2405 Filed 2-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P