  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 FILE NAME:   company.wpt   (1/1/2005) (xml)

Template Number P25

ATTENTION:

	All commodity terms must comply with the Food and Feed Commodity
Vocabulary database (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/foodfeed/).

	All text in blue font (instructions for preparing the document), should
be removed prior to sending the document to the Federal Register Staff.
Instructional text and prompts in green font should also be removed.

COMPANY FEDERAL REGISTER DOCUMENT SUBMISSION TEMPLATE

(1/1/2005)

EPA Registration Division contact:

[Cynthia Giles-Parker,

Registration Division (7505C),

Office of Pesticide Programs,

Environmental Protection Agency,

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

Washington, DC 20460–0001;

Telephone number: (703) 305–7740;

e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

INSTRUCTIONS:  Please utilize this outline in preparing tolerance
petition documents.  In cases where the outline element does not apply
please insert “NA-Remove” and maintain the outline.  The comment
notes that appear on the left margin represent hidden typesetting codes
designed to expedite the processing of the Federal Register document.
Please do not remove or alter these comment notes or change the margins,
font, or format  in your document. Simply replace the instructions that
appear in italics and brackets, i.e., “[insert company name],” with
the information specific to your action.

TEMPLATE:

 by establishing a tolerance for residues of [Boscalid (BAS 510F);
[3-pyridinecarboxamide, 2-chloro-N-(4'-chloro(1,1'-biphenyl)-2-yl]] in
or on the raw agricultural commodity Avocado at [1.5] parts per million
(ppm), Black Sapote at [1.5] parts per million (ppm), Canistel at [1.5]
parts per million (ppm), Mamey Sopote at [1.5] parts per million (ppm),
Mango at [1.5] parts per million (ppm), Papaya at [1.5] parts per
million (ppm), Sapodilla at [1.5] parts per million (ppm), Star Apple at
[1.5] parts per million (ppm), and Fresh Herbs only (Crop Subgroup 19-A)
at [60.0] parts per million (ppm). EPA has determined that the petition
contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section
408(d)(2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the
sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data
supports granting of the petition.  Additional data may be needed before
EPA rules on the petition.

.  [Based on available acute toxicity data BAS 510F and its formulated
products do not pose acute toxicity risks.  The acute toxicity studies
place technical Boscalid (BAS 510F) in toxicity category IV for acute
oral; category III for acute dermal and category IV for acute
inhalation.  BAS 510F is category IV for both eye and skin irritation,
and it is not a dermal sensitizer.  For Belgian Endives, the formulated
end use product proposed is as follows: a water dispersible granule (WG)
termed Pristine® (BAS 516 02/04F) containing a 2:1 mixture of boscalid
(BAS 510F510F) and pyraclostrobin (BAS 500F).  BAS 516 02F has an acute
oral toxicity category of III, acute dermal of category III, acute
inhalation of category IV, eye irritation of category III, skin
irritation of category IV, and is not a dermal sensitizer.

For Pome Fruits (Crop Group 11) and Stone Fruits (Crop Group 12), the
product proposed is BAS 516F 510F containing boscalid (BAS 510F510F) and
pyraclostrobin (BAS 500F).  BAS 516F has an acute oral toxicity category
of III, acute dermal of category III, acute inhalation of category IV,
eye irritation of category III, skin irritation of category IV, and is
not a dermal sensitizer.

.  [Ames Test (1 Study; gene point mutation): Negative; In Vitro
CHO/HGPRT Locus Mammalian Cell Mutation Assay (1 Study; point gene
mutation): Negative; In Vitro V79 Cell Cytogenetic Assay (1 Study;
Chromosome Damage): Negative; In Vivo Mouse Micronucleus (1 Study;
Chromosome Damage): Negative; In Vitro Rat Hepatocyte (1 Study; DNA
damage and repair): Negative. BAS 510F has been tested in a total of 5
genetic toxicology assays consisting of in vitro and in vivo studies.
It can be stated that BAS 510F did not show any mutagenic, clastogenic
or other genotoxic activity when tested under the conditions of the
studies mentioned above.  Therefore, BAS 510F does not pose a genotoxic
hazard to humans.]

.  [The reproductive and developmental toxicity of BAS 510F was
investigated in a two-generation rat reproduction study as well as in
rat and rabbit teratology studies.  There were no adverse effects on
reproduction in the two-generation study at any dose tested.  The
reproductive NOAEL is 10,000 ppm (1165 and 1181 for males and females,
respectively), the highest dose tested. Pup effects were observed, at
the highest dose tested only. In males of the F1 generation, reduced
body weight and reduced body weight gain were observed at 10,000 ppm.
Additionally, hepatocyte degeneration was observed in males in animals
of both the F0 and F1 generations at 10,000 ppm.  The parental systemic
NOAEL is 1000 and 10,000 (113 and 1181 mg/kg b.w./day) for males and
females, respectively.  Toxicity to the offspring was seen at 1,000 ppm
in the form of decreased pup weights in the F2 males, and at 10,000 ppm
in the form of decreased pup weights for both males and females of both
the F1 and F2 generations.  The offspring NOAEL is 100 and 1000 ppm (12
and 116 mg/kg b.w./day) for males and females, respectively.

The Agency concluded that there are no residual uncertainties for pre-
and postnatal toxicity as the degree of concern is low for the
susceptibility seen in the above studies, and the dose and endpoints
selected for the overall risk assessments will address the concerns for
the body weight effects seen in the offspring.  Although the dose
selected for overall risk assessments (21.8 mg/kg b.w./day) is higher
than the NOAELs in the 2-generation reproduction study (10.1 mg/kg
b.w./day) and the developmental neurotoxicity study (14 mg/kg b.w./day),
these differences are considered to be an artifact of the dose selection
process in these studies.  For example, there is a 10-fold difference
between the LOAEL (106.8 mg/kg b.w./day) and the NOAEL (10.1 mg/kg
b.w./day) in the two generation reproduction study.  A similar pattern
was seen with regard to the developmental neurotoxicity study, where
there is also a 10-fold difference between the LOAEL (147 mg/kg
b.w./day) and the NOAEL (14 mg/kg b.w./day).  There is only a 2-3-fold
difference between the LOAEL (57 mg/kg b.w./day) and the NOAEL (21.8
mg/kg b.w./day) in the critical study used for risk assessment.  Because
the gap between the NOAEL and LOAEL in the 2-generation reproduction and
developmental neurotoxicity studies was large and the effects at the
LOAELs were minimal, the true no-observed-adverse-effect-level was
probably considerably higher.  Therefore, the selection of the NOAEL of
21.8 mg/kg b.w./day from the 1-year dog study is conservative and
appropriate for the overall risk assessments.  In addition, the
endpoints for risk assessment are based on thyroid effects seen in
multiple species (mice, rats and dogs) and after various exposure
durations (subchronic and chronic exposures) which were not observed at
the LOAELs in either the 2-generation reproduction or the developmental
neurotoxicity studies.  Based on these data, the Agency concluded that
there are no residual uncertainties for pre- and post-natal toxicity.

No teratogenic effects were noted in either the rat or rabbit
developmental studies. In the rat study, evidence of maternal or
developmental toxicity was not observed at any dose (highest dose tested
of 1,000 mg/kg b.w./day).  Neither a maternal nor developmental LOAEL
were found since the highest dose tested was the NOAEL in both studies.
In the rabbit teratology study, maternal toxicity observed at the mid
dose of 300 milligrams/kilogram of body weight (mg/kg b.w./day)
consisted of discolored/reduced feces in one dam and an abortion in one
dam.  This finding is not necessarily indicative of a definitive test
substance related adverse effect.  The dam which displayed the fecal
alterations and abortion also displayed decreased body weight and body
weight gain - compared to the group mean - during gestation.  These
decreases occurred even prior to compound administration.  Food
consumption was also dramatically decreased in this dam compared to the
other animals in the group.  Every day from gestation day (GD) 1–12,
this dam had food consumption values which were less than half the mean
for the group (compound administration began on GD 7).  From GD 13 to 26
(when the animal aborted and was sacrificed) this dam ate essentially
nothing (food consumption during this time period was less than or equal
to 1.5 grams food/day).  These decreases in body weight, body weight
gain, and food consumption, prior to compound administration, all
indicate an animal in poor health and this poor state of health, rather
than compound exposure, was likely the reason for the fecal alterations
and abortion.

At the high dose of 1,000 mg/kg b.w./day a maternal body weight gain
decrease compared to controls of 81% was observed during the treatment
period.  Reduced food consumption, reduced body weight and abortions in
three dams, were also seen at 1,000 mg/kg b.w./day.  Evidence of
developmental toxicity was not seen at any dose tested.

Developmental neurotoxicity was not observed at any dose in the
developmental neurotoxicity study.  No maternal toxic effects were noted
at any dose in this study.  No developmental toxicity was seen at the
low dose of 12 mg/kg b.w./day (100 ppm).  Reduced body weights and body
weight gains were seen at 118 mg/kg b.w./day (1,000 ppm) during post
natal day (PND) 1–4.  Reduced body weights and body weight gains were
seen at 1,183 mg/kg b.w./day (10,000 ppm) as well as decreased absolute
pup brain weight at day PND 11 (both sexes) and decreased brain length
(males only) at PND.  The reduced pup brain weights and decreased brain
length go hand-in-hand and both are due to the decreased pup weights
seen at this dose.  In this respect, it should be noted that pup brain
weights relative to body weight at PND 11 were not significantly
different from controls at this dose. Though no maternal toxicity was
seen in this study, other studies using similar doses of BAS 510F
resulted in maternal toxicity.  A dose of 118 mg/kg b.w./day in female
rats of the same strain in the multigeneration study, resulted in an
increased incidence of hepatic centrilobular hypertrophy - a parameter
which could not have been detected in the developmental neurotoxicity
(DNT) study as liver histopathology on parental animals was not
performed in the DNT study.]

[The subchronic toxicity of BAS 510F was investigated in a 90–day
feeding studies with rats, mice and dogs, and in a 28–day dermal
administration study in rats.  Additonally a 90–day neurotoxicity
study in rats was performed.  Generally, mild toxicity was observed.  At
high dose levels (doses above the LOAELs) in feeding studies, all three
species displayed alterations in various clinical chemistry parameters.
These clinical chemistry alterations were likely secondary to general
toxicity.  Statistically significant increased absolute and relative
thyroid weights were observed in male rats only at doses at and above
the LOAEL.  Increased absolute and relative liver weights were observed
in both sexes at doses above the LOAEL in rats and dogs.  Increased
absolute and relative liver weights were seen in both sexes of the mouse
at lower doses.  However, the increases in liver weights at these lower
doses in the mouse were not deemed to be compound related due to the
unusually low concurrent control liver weight values.  At doses above
the LOAELs, liver weight increases were supported by histopathology
alterations in the rat and mouse, but not in the dog.  Overall, only
mild toxicity was observed in oral subchronic testing.

In the 28–day repeat dose dermal study, no systemic effects were noted
up to the highest dose tested of 1,000 mg/kg b.w./day.

In a 90–day rat neurotoxicity study, there was no mortality, signs of
clinical toxicity, or adverse effects on food consumption or body weight
at any dose level in either sex.  No signs of neurotoxicity were
observed during clinical observations, functional observation batteries,
motor activity measurements of neuropathology.  Therefore, there were no
selective neurotoxic effects.  Adverse effects were not seen even at the
highest dose level tested.  A LOAEL was not found and the NOAEL is the
highest tested of 15,000 ppm (1,050 mg/kg b.w./day in males; 1,272 mg/kg
b.w./day in females).]

. [Based on review of the available data, the Reference Dose (RfD) for
BAS 510F will be based on a 1-year feeding study in dogs with a  NOAEL
of  21.8 mg/kg b.w./day.  Using an uncertainty factor of 100, the RfD is
calculated to be 0.218 mg/kg b.w./day.  The following are summaries of
chronic toxicity studies submitted to EPA.

The chronic toxicity/oncogenicity studies with BAS 510F include a
12–month feeding study with Beagle dogs, an 18–month B63CF1 mouse
feeding study, a 24–month Wistar rat chronic feeding study and a
24–month Wistar rat oncogenicity study.

At the highest dose tested in dogs, effects observed consisted primarily
of increased liver and thyroid weights and some serum clinical chemistry
changes.  The NOAEL was 800 ppm (21.8 mg/kg b.w./day males; 22.1 mg/kg
b.w./day females).

Decreased body weights were seen in males in the mouse chronic study at
doses of 8000 ppm (1804 mg/kg b.w./day) and above.  Decreased female
body weight was seen at doses of 2,000 ppm (331 mg/kg b.w./day) and
above.  The target organ in this study was the liver.  The NOAEL was 65
and 443 mg/kg b.w./day (8000 and 2000 ppm) for male and female mice,
respectively.  In both the rat chronic and oncogenicity studies, the
highest dose tested of 15,000 ppm exceeded a maximum tolerated dose
(MTD) and was discontinued after 17 months.  Effects observed at the
next highest dose of 2,500 ppm primarily centered around the thyroid and
liver.  The NOAEL was 23 and 30 mg/kg b.w./day (2500 ppm) for male and
female rats, respectively.

Overall, mild toxicity was observed with chronic exposure to BAS 510F.
No evidence of treatment-induced oncogenicity was observed in the mouse
or dog studies.  A slight increase in thyroid follicular cell adenomas
was seen in both sexes at the high dose when the data from both rat
bioassays are combined.

	A mode of action (MOA) for the thyroid follicular cell adenomas has
been proposed. This MOA is based on the EPA publication “Assessment of
Thyroid Follicular Cell Tumors,” March 1998, EPA/630/R–97/002.  This
document describes the criteria which must be met in order for a
compound to be considered under the MOA described in that

publication.  BASF Corporation believes that BAS 510F has met the cited
criteria.

Threshold effects.  Based on a review of the available chronic toxicity
data, BASF believes EPA will establish the RfD for BAS 510F at 0.281
mg/kg b.w./day.  This RfD for BAS 510F is based on the 2–year chronic
and 2–year oncogenicity studies in rats and the 1 year dog study with
a the lowest threshold NOAEL of 21.8 mg/kg b.w./day for males.  Using an
uncertainty factor of 100, the RfD is calculated to be 0.218 mg/kg
b.w./day.  Based on the acute toxicity data, BASF believes that BAS 510F
does not pose any acute dietary risks.

BAS 510F was shown to be noncarcinogenic in mice and dogs.  There was a
slight increase in thyroid follicular cell ademonas at the high dose in
both sexes in the rat.  A threshold based MOA for these tumors based on
the EPA publication “Assessment of Thyroid Follicular Cell Tumors”
(EPA/630/R–97/002, March, 1998), has been proposed.  BASF believes the
data to support this proposed mode of action are strong, and that the
thyroid tumors seen in the rat following BAS 510F exposure have a
threshold.  In addition, a battery of genotoxicity studies demonstrated
that BAS 510F has no genotoxic or clastogenic potential.  Therefore,
BASF believes that the threshold approach to regulating BAS 510F is
appropriate.  Also, it should be noted that, while the Agency has in the
past considered tumors of this type to be potential human carcinogens,
the European Union has published a policy which considers these tumor
types, when they occur at low incidence rates in the rat, to not be
relevant to man.  (The publication: European Commission, European
Chemicals Bureau, ECBI/49/99 – Add. 1 Rev. 2; “Draft Summary Record,
Commission Group of Specialized Experts in the fields of
Carcinogenicity, Mutagenicity and Reprotoxicity” Meeting at Arona,
1– 2 September 1999), Therefore, BASF believes that these tumors are
not likely relevant to humans and, if these tumors are to be considered
relevant to humans, the threshold approach to cancer risk assessment is
appropriate.]

. [In the rat, the predominant route of excretion of BAS 510F is fecal
with urinary excretion being minor.  The half-life of BAS 510F is less
than 24 hours.  Saturation of absorption appears to be occurring at the
high dose level. BAS 510F is rapidly and intensively metabolized to a
large number of biotransformation products.  The hydroxylation of the
diphenyl moiety was the quantitatively most important pathway.  Second
most important was the substitution of the Cl of the 2-chloropyridine
part against SH by conjugation with glutathione.  No major differences
were observed.  In hens and goats the residues of concern were
determined to be parent, the hydroxylated metabolite M510 F01
(2-chloro-N-(4'chloro-5-hydroxy-biphenyl-2-yl)nicotinamide), and the
glucuronic acid of the metabolite M510 F02.]

. [No additional studies were required for metabolite toxicology.]

.  [No specific tests have been conducted with BAS 510F to determine
whether the chemical may have an effect in humans that is similar to an
effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen or other endocrine
effects. However, there were no significant findings in other relevant
toxicity studies (i.e., subchronic and chronic toxicity, teratology and
multi-generation reproductive studies) which would suggest that BAS 510F
produces endocrine related effects.]

. An assessment was conducted to evaluate the potential risk due to
chronic dietary exposure of the U.S. population and sub-populations to
residues of boscalid.  Tolerance values for boscalid (BAS 510F) have
previously been established and are listed in U.S. 40 CFR § 180.589.

This analysis included all crops with established boscalid tolerance
values, crops pending tolerance assignment (vegetable, leafy group 4
with celery 45 ppm and spinach 60 ppm; almond hulls 17 ppm; banana pulp
0.2; Belgian Endive 12 ppm), increased tolerance values (berries, crop
group 13 at 8 ppm; strawberries at 4.5 ppm) and proposed tolerances
(herbs fresh at 60 ppm; avocado at 1.5 ppm; mango, papaya, black sapote,
mamey sapote, canistel, sapodilla, star apple at 1.5 ppm).

.

Acute Dietary Exposure Assessment

An acute assessment was not needed since the U.S. EPA Toxicological
Endpoint Selection (TES) Committees had previously evaluated the
boscalid toxicity data and determined there were no toxic effects
attributable to a single dose.  Therefore, a quantitative acute dietary
exposure and risk assessment were not required.

Chronic Dietary Exposure Assessment

A Tier 1 chronic dietary exposure assessment was conducted assuming
tolerance level residues, default processing factors, 100% crop treated
factors for all crops and consumption data from the USDA Continuing
Survey of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII 1994 - 1996, 1998) and the
EPA Food Commodity Ingredient Database (FCID) using Exponent's Dietary
Exposure Evaluation Module (DEEM-FCID) software.  Residues in animal
commodities (i.e. meat, meat byproducts, fat, milk, eggs) were included
at the tolerance levels currently established and listed in U.S. 40 CFR
§ 180.589.

Dietary exposure estimates were compared against the established
boscalid chronic Population Adjusted Dose (cPAD) of 0.218 mg/kg b.w./day
for all populations.  Results of the chronic dietary assessments are
listed in the Table 1.  The estimated chronic dietary exposure from
crops and animal commodities was less than 32 % of the cPAD for all
subpopulations.  Additional refinements such as the use of anticipated
residues and adjusted crop treated factors would further reduce the
estimated chronic dietary exposure.  The results in Table 1 demonstrate
there are no safety concerns for any subpopulation based on established
and new uses, and the results clearly meet the FQPA standard of
reasonable certainty of no harm.

Table 1.  Summary of Chronic Dietary Exposure Assessment

Considering Crops with Established and Proposed Tolerances

for Boscalid

Population

Subgroups	Exposure Estimate

(mg/kg b.w./day)	%cPAD

U.S. Population	0.02018	9.3

All Infants	0.04664	21.4

Children 1-2 years	0.067345	30.9

Children 3-5 years	0.047297	21.7

Children 6-12 years	0.024588	11.3

Youth 13-19 years	0.013928	6.4

Females 13-49 years	0.015634	7.2

Adults 20-49 years	0.015416	7.1

Adults 50+ years	0.016889	7.7

%cPAD = percent of chronic population adjusted dose

Exposure estimates based on tolerance values, default processing

.

Based on PRZM/EXAMS and SCI-GROW models, the estimated drinking water
exposure concentrations of boscalid for chronic exposure were 26 ppb for
surface water and 0.63 ppb for ground water.  Drinking water
contributions were assessed based on the maximum estimated boscalid
water concentrations (26 ug/L), and water consumption and body weights
reported in CSFII, using DEEM-FCID software.  The chronic estimated
water exposure values are summarized in Table 2.  Minimal exposure of
boscalid occurs through drinking water with < 1.0% cPAD for all
subpopulations.

Table 2. 	Results for Boscalid Chronic Water Exposure Analysis
Considering the Maximum Estimated Chronic Drinking Water Concentration
using

DEEM-FCID

Population	Water Exposure Estimate	%aPAD

Subgroups	(mg/kg b.w./day)

U.S. Population	0.000548	0.3

All Infants (< 1 year old)	0.001797	0.8

Children (1-2 years old)	0.000814	0.4

Children (3-5 years old)	0.000762	0.3

Children (6-12 years old)	0.000525	0.2

Youth (13-19 years old)	0.000396	0.2

Females (13-49 years old)	0.000510	0.2

Adults (20-49 years old)	0.000512	0.2

Adults (50+ years old)	0.000538	0.2

cPAD = chronic  population adjusted dose

Based on estimated acute surface water value of 26 ug/L

Acute Aggregate Exposure and Risk (Food and water)

Since the U.S. EPA Toxicological Endpoint Selection (TES) Committees has
evaluated the Boscalid toxicity data and determined there was no
toxicological endpoints for acute dietary exposure, the determination of
an acute aggregate exposure and risk evaluation was not required.

Short- and Intermediate Term Aggregate Exposure and Risk (food,water,
and residential)

Short- and intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account
residential exposure plus chronic exposure from food and water.
Residential exposure is used to refer to non-occupational and
non-dietary exposure.  No new residential uses are currently being
registered for boscalid that would increase non-dietary exposure.  The
residential exposure value used in this risk assessment was previously
determined by the EPA (Federal Register, Volume 68, No 146, July 30,
2003) and considers dermal exposure to adults from the golf course use.
 The MOE presented in the Table 3 is considered to be representative for
youth playing golf because youth and adults possess similar body surface
area to weight rations and because the dietary exposure for youth (13-19
years old) is less than that of the general US population.

Table 3. 	Estimated Short/Intermediate Term Aggregate Exposure and Risk
of Pyraclostrobin

Population	NOAEL (mg/kg/day)	Target MOE1	Food Exposure (mg/kg/day)	Water
Exposure (mg/kg/day)	Residential Exposure2 (mg/kg/day)	Total Exposure
(mg/kg/day)	MOE3

US	21.8	100	0.02018	0.000548	0.0008	0.021528	1013

1 Target MOE is 100.

2  Residential Exposure = Exposure to adult while playing golf.

3 Aggregate MOE = (NOAEL / (Food + Water + Residential Exposure)

 Chronic Aggregate Exposure and Risk (food and water)

The aggregate chronic risk includes residues of boscalid from food and
water (Table 4). Exposures from residential uses are not included in the
chronic aggregate assessment.  The results demonstrate there are no
safety concerns for any subpopulation based on established and new uses,
and that the results clearly meet the FQPA standard of reasonable
certainty of no harm.

  Table 4. 	Estimated Chronic Aggregate Exposure and Risk of Boscalid

Population Subgroup	cPAD (mg/kg/day)	Food Exposure (mg/kg/day)	Water
Exposure (mg/kg/day)	Total Exposure (mg/kg/day)	% cPAD

U.S. Population	0.218	0.02018	0.000548	0.020728	9.51

All Infants (< 1 yr old)	0.218	0.04664	0.001797	0.048437	22.2

Children 1-2 years	0.218	0.067345	0.000814	0.068159	31.3

Children 3-5 years	0.218	0.047297	0.000762	0.048059	22.1

Children 6 – 12 years	0.218	0.024588	0.000525	0.025113	11.5

Youth 13-19 years	0.218	0.013928	0.000396	0.014324	6.57

Females 13-49 years	0.218	0.015634	0.00051	0.016144	7.41

Adults 20-49 years	0.218	0.015416	0.000512	0.015928	7.31

Adults + 50	0.218	0.016889	0.000538	0.017427	7.99

	Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) 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.’’ BAS 510F510 F is a foliar fungicide
chemically belonging to the carboxin class of fungicides. BAS 510F510 F
acts in the fungal cell by inhibiting mitochondrial respiration through
inhibition of the succinate-ubiquinone oxidase reductase system in
Complex II of the mitochondrial electron transport chain. BAS 510F510 F
shares this mode of action with only one other currently registered U.S.
pesticide - carboxin.

The EPA is currently developing methodology to perform cumulative risk
assessments. At this time, there is no available data to determine
whether BAS 510F510F has a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances or how to include this pesticide in a cumulative risk
assessment. Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a
cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, BAS
510F510F does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other
substances.

E. Safety Determination

.  Based on this risk assessment, BASF concludes that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population
from the aggregate exposure to pyraclostrobin residues.

{<HD1>}

{</HD1>}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

{<P>}

{</P>}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{</P>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{</P>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{</P>}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{</P>}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

{<P>}

{</P>}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{</P>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{</P>}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

{<P>}

{</P>}


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 157 (Monday, August 15, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53962-53964]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19114]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2015-3991; Airspace Docket No. 15-ANM-13]

Proposed Amendment of Class D and E Airspace; Eugene, OR, and
Corvallis, OR

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E airspace designated as
an extension to a Class D or E surface airspace area, and Class E
airspace upward from 700 feet above the surface at Mahlon Sweet Field
Airport, Eugene, OR, to accommodate airspace redesign. Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Mahlon Sweet Field
Airport also would be amended to remove reference to the Corvallis
Municipal Airport by creating a stand-alone airspace designation for
Corvallis Municipal Airport. Additionally, this proposal would update
the airport reference points for these airports in Class D and E
airspace, as well as remove the Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) requirement
noted in Class E surface area airspace. Airspace redesign is necessary
for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)
operations within the National Airspace System.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 29, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone:
1-800-647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2016-3991; Airspace Docket No. 15-ANM-13, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the
proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in
the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-
647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.
    FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of
FAA Order 7400.9Z at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Clark, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would amend Class D and E airspace at Mahlon Sweet Field Airport,
Eugene, OR, and Corvallis Municipal Airport, Corvallis, OR.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in

developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Persons wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2015-3991/
Airspace Docket No. 15-ANM-13.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.regulations.gov.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service
Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98057.

Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by
Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective
September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying Class E airspace designated
as an extension to a Class D or Class E surface area, and Class E
airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Mahlon
Sweet Field Airport, Eugene, OR. The Class E surface extension to the
north would be slightly modified to contain aircraft using the VOR-A
approach, and the extension to the south would be enlarged to contain
aircraft using the RNP (RNAV) Z instrument approaches as they descend
below 1,000 feet above the surface. Class E airspace extending upward
from 700 feet above the surface would be reduced to the northeast and
west of the airport, to only that area necessary to contain IFR arrival
aircraft, descending below 1,500 feet above the surface, and IFR
departure aircraft, until reaching 1,200 feet above the surface, and
the Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface
would be revoked, as this airspace area is provided by the Bend, OR
Class E En Route airspace area, and duplication is not necessary.
    This action also would create stand-alone Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for Corvallis
Municipal Airport, Corvallis, OR, thereby removing reference to
Corvallis Municipal Airport from the Mahlon Sweet Field Airport
airspace designation. The overall Class E airspace area near Corvallis
Municipal Airport would remain generally the same, with a slight
reduction north, and a slight enlargement west of the airport. The
geographic coordinates of these airports would be updated for all Class
D and Class E airspace areas.
    Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraphs
5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated
August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated
by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations
listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and
effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

ANM OR D Eugene, OR [Modified]

Mahlon Sweet Field Airport, OR
    (Lat. 44[deg]07'29'' N., long. 123[deg]12'43'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,900 feet MSL within a 4.6-mile radius of Mahlon Sweet Field
Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific
dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The
effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in
the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas.

* * * * *

ANM OR E2 Eugene, OR [Modified]

Mahlon Sweet Field Airport, OR
    (Lat. 44[deg]07'29'' N., long. 123[deg]12'43'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.6-
mile radius of Mahlon Sweet Field Airport.

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension to
a Class D or Class E Surface Area.

* * * * *

ANM OR E4 Eugene, OR [Modified]

Mahlon Sweet Field Airport, OR
    (Lat. 44[deg]07'29'' N., long. 123[deg]12'43'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 3 miles
west and 2 miles east of the Mahlon Sweet Field Airport 008[deg]
bearing, extending from the 4.6-mile radius of the airport to 6.8
miles north of the airport, and within the area bounded by the
airport 142[deg] bearing clockwise to the airport 213[deg] bearing,
extending from the 4.6-mile radius to 13.5 miles south of the
airport, and within the area bounded by the airport 213[deg] bearing
clockwise to the airport 226[deg] bearing, extending from the 4.6-
mile radius to 14 miles southwest of the airport.

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ANM OR E5 Corvallis, OR [New]

Corvallis Municipal Airport, OR
    (Lat. 44[deg]29'50'' N., long. 123[deg]17' 22'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6-mile radius of Corvallis Municipal Airport, and 2.4 miles
each side of the airport 007[deg] bearing, extending from the 6-mile
radius to 12.4 miles north of the airport, and 2.6 miles each side
of the airport 104[deg] bearing extending from the 6-mile radius to
7.1 miles east of the airport, and 2 miles each side of the airport
188[deg] bearing extending from the 6-mile radius to 7.1 miles south
of the airport.
* * * * *

ANM OR E5 Eugene, OR [Modified]

Mahlon Sweet Field Airport, OR
    (Lat. 44[deg]07'29'' N., long. 123[deg]12'43'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6-mile radius of Mahlon Sweet Field Airport, and that
airspace within the area bounded by the airport 098[deg] bearing
clockwise to the airport 138[deg] bearing, extending from the 6-mile
radius to 18.3 miles southeast of the airport, and within the area
bounded by the airport 138[deg] bearing clockwise to the 170[deg]
bearing, extending from the 6-mile radius to 13.5 miles southeast of
the airport, and within the area bounded by the airport 170[deg]
bearing clockwise to the 234[deg] bearing, extending from the 6-mile
radius to 18.3 miles southwest of the airport, and that airspace
within 3.6 miles east and 8.5 miles west of the airport 008[deg]
bearing, extending from the 6-mile radius to 16 miles north of the
airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on August 4, 2016.
Byron Chew,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2016-19114 Filed 8-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 72 (Tuesday, April 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 21234]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08497]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14573-000]

Siting Renewables, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

    On December 17, 2013, Siting Renewables, LLC, filed an application
for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power
Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Easton Dam
Hydroelectric Project (Easton Dam Project or project) to be located on
the Lehigh River, near Easton, Northampton County, Pennsylvania. The
Easton Dam is owned by the state of Pennsylvania. The sole purpose of a
preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority
to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary
permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-
disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by
others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) An
existing dam, reinforced with concrete in 1967, 30 feet high; (2) a
590-foot-long concrete spillway discharging into the Delaware River;
(3) two channels, each with three, 500-kilowatt (kW) very low head
(VLH) turbines and generators with a maximum generating capacity of
3000 kW, with a maximum hydraulic capacity of 2,300 cubic feet per
second under a 30-foot gross head; (4) two new heavy flotsam racks; (5)
a crest mounted walkway, carrying hydraulic and electrical conduits
from the VLH turbines to a new powerhouse; (6) one hydraulic and
electrical controls module; and (7) one 4,800-foot-long 12.42/7.2
kilovolt primary transmission line. The estimated annual generation of
the Easton Dam Project would be 15,770,000 kilowatthours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Ralph J. Jones, Siting Renewables, LLC, 1800
Rt. 34, Suite 101, Wall, NJ 07719; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Timothy Looney; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-14573-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14573) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: April 9, 2014.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-08497 Filed 4-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P