[Federal Register: July 16, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 135)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 34503-34508]
[DOCID:fr16jy09-4]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2007-0905; FRL-8931-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas;
Revisions to General Air Quality Rules and the Mass Emissions Cap and
Trade Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking a direct final action to approve portions of one
revision to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the
State of Texas on August 16, 2007; these portions of the SIP revision
approved: Repeal an unnecessary effective date in the Texas SIP under
Title 30 in the Texas Administrative Code (TAC), Chapter 101--General
Air Quality Rules, Subchapter A--General Rules; and make non-
substantive changes in the Texas SIP to the Mass Emissions Cap and
Trade Program (MECT) under 30 TAC Chapter 101, Subchapter H--Emissions
Banking and Trading, Division 3. EPA has determined that these changes
to the Texas SIP comply with the Federal Clean Air Act (the Act or CAA)
and EPA regulations, are consistent with EPA policies, and will improve
air quality. This action is being taken under section 110 and parts C
and D of the Act.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective on September 14, 2009
without further notice, unless EPA receives relevant adverse comment by
August 17, 2009. If EPA receives such comment, EPA will publish a
timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that
this rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-
OAR-2007-0905, by one of the following methods:
    (1) www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments.
    (2) E-mail: Mr. Jeff Robinson at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
also cc the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
paragraph below.
    (3) U.S. EPA Region 6 ``Contact Us'' Web site: http://epa.gov/
region6/r6coment.htm. Please click on ``6PD'' (Multimedia) and select
``Air'' before submitting comments.
    (4) Fax: Mr. Jeff Robinson, Chief, Air Permits Section (6PD-R), at
fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) Mail: Mr. Jeff Robinson, Chief, Air Permits Section (6PD-R),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas,
Texas 75202-2733.
    (6) Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Jeff Robinson, Chief, Air Permits
Section (6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries are accepted only
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal
holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2007-0905. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless

the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information the disclosure of which is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail, if you believe that it is CBI or
otherwise protected from disclosure. The http://www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means that EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA
without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address
will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that
is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If
you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in the body of your comment along
with any disk or CD-ROM submitted. If EPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters and any form of encryption and should be
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's
public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only
in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air
Permits Section (6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made
available by appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA
Review Room between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays
except for legal holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph below to make an appointment. If
possible, please make the appointment at least two working days in
advance of your visit. A 15-cent per page fee will be charged for
making photocopies of documents. On the day of the visit, please check
in at the EPA Region 6 reception area on the seventh floor at 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.
    The State submittal related to this SIP revision, and which is part
of the EPA docket, is also available for public inspection at the State
Air Agency listed below during official business hours by appointment:
    Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Office of Air Quality,
12124 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas 78753.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions concerning
today's direct final action, please contact Ms. Adina Wiley (6PD-R),
Air Permits Section, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445
Ross Avenue (6PD-R), Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202-2733. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. Wiley can also be reached via electronic
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever any
reference to ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What Action Is EPA Taking?
II. What Did Texas Submit?
III. What Is EPA's Evaluation of This SIP Revision?
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Action Is EPA Taking?

    We are taking direct final action to approve portions of one
revision to the Texas SIP submitted by the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ) on August 16, 2007. One of the portions of
the August 16, 2007 SIP revision submittal repeals an unnecessary
effective date in the Texas SIP that is under the General Air Quality
Rules found at 30 TAC Chapter 101, Subchapter A. Another portion of the
August 16, 2007 submittal revises the MECT Program in the Texas SIP
that is under 30 TAC Chapter 101, Subchapter H, Division 3. The MECT
Program in the Texas SIP is non-substantively revised to correctly
update the name and acronym of the Houston/Galveston/Brazoria ozone
nonattainment area and to update the cross-references to the stationary
source nitrogen oxide (NOX) rules found in the Texas SIP at
30 TAC Chapter 117 as a result of the non-substantive recodification of
Chapter 117 approved by EPA as part of the Texas SIP on December 3,
2008 (see 73 FR 73562). Consequently, we are approving the repeal of
section 101.22 from the Texas SIP, and revisions to the Texas SIP at
sections 101.350(10), 101.351(a), 101.353(a), 101.354(a) and (e), and
101.360(a)(3) submitted on August 16, 2007 by the TCEQ.
    We are publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view
this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no relevant adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if relevant adverse
comments are received. This rule will be effective on September 14,
2009 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse comment
by August 17, 2009. If we receive relevant adverse comments, we will
publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the
public that the rule will not take effect. We will address all public
comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will
not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting must do so now. Please note that if we receive
adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and
if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may
adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of
an adverse comment.

II. What Did Texas Submit?

    We are approving portions from one SIP revision that TCEQ adopted
on July 25, 2007 and submitted to EPA on August 16, 2007. A copy of the
revised rule as well as the Technical Support Document (TSD) can be
obtained from the Docket, as discussed in the ``Docket'' section above.
A discussion of the specific Texas rule changes that we are approving
is included in the TSD and summarized below. The TSD also contains a
discussion as to why EPA is not taking action on certain provisions of
this Texas SIP submittal. We are not acting today upon revisions to the
general air quality definitions at 30 TAC Chapter 101, Subchapter A,
section 101.1 because previous revisions are still pending for review
by EPA. We are also not acting today upon the revisions to the Emission
Credit Banking and Trading Program at 30 TAC Chapter 101, Subchapter H,
Division 1, sections 101.302 and 101.306 because EPA is still reviewing
a previous revision to the SIP submitted on October 24, 2006.
Similarly, we are not acting today upon the revisions to the Discrete
Emission Credit Banking and Trading Program at 30 TAC Chapter 101,
Subchapter H, Division 4, sections 101.372 and 101.376 because the
October 24, 2006 SIP revision is still under EPA review. EPA has not
yet taken action on the System Cap Trading Program at 30 TAC

Chapter 101, Subchapter H, Division 5 and therefore is not acting today
upon revisions to sections 101.383 and 101.385.

A. 30 TAC Chapter 101, Subchapter A

Section 101.22--Effective Date
    The existing SIP-approved version of section 101.22 was adopted by
the State of Texas on July 20, 1981, and approved by EPA on April 22,
1982 (see 47 FR 17285). Section 101.22 established an effective date by
which the general air quality rules found at 30 TAC Chapter 101 are in
force in the State of Texas. The TCEQ repealed section 101.22 on July
25, 2007.

B. 30 TAC Chapter 101, Subchapter H, Division 3

1. Section 101.350--Definitions
    The existing SIP-approved version of section 101.350(1)-(14) was
adopted by the TCEQ on December 13, 2002, and approved by EPA on
September 6, 2006 (see 71 FR 52664). The revisions to section
101.350(10) adopted by the TCEQ on July 25, 2007, update the name and
acronym of the Houston/Galveston (HGA) ozone nonattainment area to
Houston/Galveston/Brazoria (HGB) ozone nonattainment area, consistent
with the 1997 eight-hour ozone designations.
2. Section 101.351--Applicability
    The existing SIP-approved version of section 101.351(a) and (b) was
adopted by the TCEQ on December 13, 2002, and approved by EPA on
September 6, 2006 (see 71 FR 52664). The revisions to section
101.351(a) and (a)(1) adopted by the TCEQ on July 25, 2007, update the
name of the Houston/Galveston/Brazoria ozone nonattainment area to be
consistent with the definitions at section 101.350, update cross-
references to stationary source NOX rules at 30 TAC Chapter
117 as a result of the Chapter 117 recodification to the Texas SIP, and
provide grammatical changes.
3. Section 101.353--Allocation of Allowances
    The existing SIP-approved version of section 101.353(a)-(h) was
adopted by the TCEQ on December 13, 2002, and approved by EPA on
September 6, 2006 (see 71 FR 52664). The revisions to section
101.353(a) adopted by the TCEQ on July 25, 2007, update the allowance
calculation figure to correctly cross-reference the recodified
stationary source NOX rules to the Texas SIP at 30 TAC
Chapter 117.
4. Section 101.354--Allowance Deductions
    The existing SIP-approved version of section 101.354(a)-(g) was
adopted by the TCEQ on December 13, 2002, and approved by EPA on
September 6, 2006 (see 71 FR 52664). TCEQ revised section 101.354(a)
and (e) to correctly cross-reference the recodified stationary source
NOX rules to the Texas SIP at 30 TAC Chapter 117.
5. Section 101.360--Level of Activity Certification
    The existing SIP-approved version of section 101.360(a)-(c) was
adopted by the TCEQ on December 13, 2002, and approved by EPA on
September 6, 2006 (see 71 FR 52664). TCEQ revised section 101.360(a)(3)
to correctly cross-reference the recodified stationary source
NOX rules to the Texas SIP at 30 TAC Chapter 117.

III. What Is EPA's Evaluation of This SIP Revision?

A. 30 TAC Chapter 101, Subchapter A

Section 101.22--Effective Date
    The July 25, 2007, repeal of section 101.22 is approvable. The
Texas Administrative Code does not need to include the effective date
for the general air rules since each section now has its own effective
date included at the end of each section. Additionally, EPA includes
the effective date for each section that is approved into the Texas SIP
at 40 CFR 52.2270(c).

B. 30 TAC Chapter 101, Subchapter H, Division 3

1. Section 101.350--Definitions
    The revisions to section 101.350(10) adopted by the TCEQ on July
25, 2007, are approvable. These revisions are non-substantive and serve
only to update the name and acronym of the Houston/Galveston (HGA)
ozone nonattainment area to Houston/Galveston/Brazoria (HGB) ozone
nonattainment area, consistent with the 1997 eight-hour ozone
designations. These revisions to do not affect the functionality of the
SIP-approved MECT program.
2. Section 101.351--Applicability
    The revisions to section 101.351(a) and (a)(1) adopted by the TCEQ
on July 25, 2007, are approvable. These non-substantive revisions
update the name of the Houston/Galveston/Brazoria ozone nonattainment
area to be consistent with the definitions at section 101.350, update
cross-references to the stationary NOX rules at 30 TAC
Chapter 117 as a result of the Chapter 117 recodification to the Texas
SIP, and provide grammatical changes. The table below demonstrates that
the cross-references have been updated correctly and that no previous
SIP-approved section of Chapter 117 was overlooked in the cross-
reference update. These non-substantive revisions do not alter the
applicability or functionality of the SIP-approved MECT program.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
    SIP-approved references in Sec.
  101.351  As adopted by TCEQ December        Recodified Chapter 117
  13, 2002, effective January 17, 2003    references  As adopted by TCEQ
 Approved by EPA September 6, 2006 (71   July 25, 2007, effective August
               FR 52664)                             10, 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   101.351(a) refers to sections:    Sec.   101.351(a) refers to
                                          sections:
    Sec.   117.106--Emission                Sec.   117.1210--Emission
     Specifications for Attainment           Specifications for
     Demonstrations for Utility              Attainment Demonstration at
     Electric Generation in Ozone            Major Utility Electric
     Nonattainment Areas.                    Generation Sources in the
                                             HGB Ozone Nonattainment
                                             Area.
    Sec.   117.206--Emission                Sec.   117.310--Emission
     Specifications for Attainment           Specifications for
     Demonstrations for Industrial,          Attainment Demonstration
     Commercial, and Institutional           for Combustion Control at
     Combustion Sources in Ozone             Major Industrial,
     Nonattainment Areas.                    Commercial, and
                                             Institutional Sources in
                                             the Houston-Galveston-
                                             Brazoria Ozone
                                             Nonattainment Area.
    Sec.   117.475--Emission                Sec.   117.2010--Emission
     Specifications for Boilers,             Specifications for
     Process Heaters, and Stationary         Combustion Control at Minor
     Engines and Gas Turbines at Minor       Sources in the HGB Ozone
     Sources.                                Nonattainment Area.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Section 101.353--Allocation of Allowances
    The revisions to section 101.353(a) adopted by the TCEQ on July 25,
2007, are approvable. The non-substantive revisions to the allowance
calculation figure correctly cross-reference the recodified stationary
source NOX rules in the Texas SIP at 30 TAC Chapter 117. The
table below demonstrates that the cross-references have been updated
correctly and that no previous SIP-

approved section of Chapter 117 was overlooked in the cross-reference
update. These non-substantive revisions do not affect the calculation
of allowances or the functionality of the SIP-approved MECT program.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
    SIP-approved references in Sec.
  101.353  As adopted by TCEQ December        Recodified Chapter 117
  13, 2002, effective January 17, 2003    references  As adopted by TCEQ
 Approved by EPA September 6, 2006 (71   July 25, 2007, effective August
               FR 52664)                             10, 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 101.353(a)(2) refers to           Figure 101.353(a)(2) refers to
 sections:                                sections:
    Sec.   117.106--Emission                Sec.   117.1210--Emission
     Specifications for Attainment           Specifications for
     Demonstrations for Utility              Attainment Demonstration at
     Electric Generation in Ozone            Major Utility Electric
     Nonattainment Areas.                    Generation Sources in the
                                             HGB Ozone Nonattainment
                                             Area.
    Sec.   117.206--Emission                Sec.   117.310--Emission
     Specifications for Attainment           Specifications for
     Demonstrations for Industrial,          Attainment Demonstration
     Commercial, and Institutional           for Combustion Control at
     Combustion Sources in Ozone             Major Industrial,
     Nonattainment Areas.                    Commercial, and
                                             Institutional Sources in
                                             the Houston-Galveston-
                                             Brazoria Ozone
                                             Nonattainment Area.
    Sec.   117.475--Emission                Sec.   117.2010--Emission
     Specifications for Boilers,             Specifications for
     Process Heaters, and Stationary         Combustion Control at Minor
     Engines and Gas Turbines at Minor       Sources in the HGB Ozone
     Sources.                                Nonattainment Area.
Figure 101.353(a)(3) refers to           Figure 101.353(a)(3) refers to
 sections:                                sections:
    Sec.   117.206(c)(1)(A) and (B)--       Sec.   117.310(a)(1)(A) and
     ESADs for gas-fired boilers.            (B)--ESADs for gas-fired
                                             boilers.
    Sec.   117.206(c)(2)(A)--fluid          Sec.   117.310(a)(2)(A)--
     catalytic cracking units.               fluid catalytic cracking
                                             units.
    Sec.   117.206(c)(5)--wood fuel         Sec.   117.310(a)(5)--wood
     fired boilers.                          fuel-fired boilers.
    Sec.   117.206(c)(8)(A)(i)--process     Sec.   117.310(a)(8)(A)(i)--
     heaters other than pyrolysis            process heaters other than
     reactors.                               pyrolysis reactors.
    Sec.   117.206(c)(8)(B)--process        Sec.   117.310(a)(8)(B)--
     heaters that are pyrolysis              process heaters that are
     reactors.                               pyrolysis reactors.
    Sec.   117.206(c)(9)(A)(ii)--           Sec.   117.310(a)(9)(A)(ii)--
     stationary, reciprocating internal      stationary, reciprocating
     combustion engines that are gas-        internal combustion engines
     fired rich burn engines not fired       that are gas-fired rich
     on landfill gas.                        burn engines not fired on
                                             landfill gas.
    Sec.   117.206(c)(10)--stationary       Sec.   117.310(a)(10)--
     gas turbines.                           stationary gas turbines.
    Sec.   117.206(c)(11)--duct burners     Sec.   117.310(a)(11)--duct
     used in turbine exhaust ducts.          burners used in turbine
                                             exhaust ducts.
Figure 101.353(a)(5) refers to           Figure 101.353(a)(5) refers to
 sections:                                sections:
    Sec.   117.106--Emission                Sec.   117.1210--Emission
     Specifications for Attainment           Specifications for
     Demonstrations for Utility              Attainment Demonstration at
     Electric Generation in Ozone            Major Utility Electric
     Nonattainment Areas.                    Generation Sources in the
                                             HGB Ozone Nonattainment
                                             Area.
    Sec.   117.206--Emission                Sec.   117.310--Emission
     Specifications for Attainment           Specifications for
     Demonstrations for Industrial,          Attainment Demonstration
     Commercial, and Institutional           for Combustion Control at
     Combustion Sources in Ozone             Major Industrial,
     Nonattainment Areas.                    Commercial, and
                                             Institutional Sources in
                                             the Houston-Galveston-
                                             Brazoria Ozone
                                             Nonattainment Area.
    Sec.   117.475--Emission                Sec.   117.2010--Emission
     Specifications for Boilers,             Specifications for
     Process Heaters, and Stationary         Combustion Control at Minor
     Engines and Gas Turbines at Minor       Sources in the HGB Ozone
     Sources.                                Nonattainment Area.
Figure 101.353(a)(6) refers to           Figure 101.353(a)(6) refers to
 sections:                                sections:
    Sec.   117.206(c)(17)--alternative      Sec.   117.310(a)(17)--
     to the emission specifications in       alternative to the emission
     (c)(1)-(16).                            specifications in (a)(1)-
                                             (16).
    Sec.   117.475(c)(6)--alternative       Sec.   117.2010(c)(6)--
     to the emission specifications in       alternative to the emission
     (c)(1)-(5).                             specifications in (c)(1)-
                                             (5).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Section 101.354--Allowance Deductions
    The July 25, 2007, revisions to section 101.354(a) and (e) are
approvable. These non-substantive revisions correctly cross-reference
the recodified stationary source NOX rules in the Texas SIP
at 30 TAC Chapter 117. The table below demonstrates that the cross-
references have been updated correctly and that no previous SIP-
approved section of Chapter 117 was overlooked in the cross-reference
update. These non-substantive revisions do not affect the calculation
of allowances or the functionality of the SIP-approved MECT program.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
    SIP-approved references in Sec.
  101.354  As adopted by TCEQ December        Recodified Chapter 117
  13, 2002, effective January 17, 2003    references  As adopted by TCEQ
 Approved by EPA September 6, 2006 (71   July 25, 2007, effective August
               FR 52664)                             10, 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   101.354(a) refers to sections:    Sec.   101.354(a) refers to
                                          sections:
    Sec.   117.114--Emission Testing        Sec.   117.1240--Continuous
     and Monitoring for the Houston/         Demonstration of Compliance
     Galveston Attainment Demonstration      for Utility Electric
     for Utility Electric Generation in      Generation Sources in HGB
     Ozone Nonattainment Areas.              Ozone Nonattainment Area.
    Sec.   117.214--Emission Testing        Sec.   117.340--Continuous
     and Monitoring for the Houston/         Demonstration of Compliance
     Galveston Attainment Demonstration      for Major Industrial,
     for Industrial, Commercial, and         Commercial, and
     Institutional Combustion Sources        Institutional Sources in
     in Ozone Nonattainment Areas.           the HGB Ozone Nonattainment
                                             Area.
    Sec.   117.479--Monitoring,             Sec.   117.2035--Monitoring
     Recordkeeping, and Reporting            and Testing Requirements
     Requirements for Boilers, Process       for Minor Sources in HGB
     Heaters, and Stationary Engines         Ozone Nonattainment Area.
     and Gas Turbines at Minor Sources.
Sec.   117.354(e) refers to sections:    Sec.   117.354(e) refers to
                                          sections:
    Sec.   117.206--Emission                Sec.   117.310--Emission
     Specifications for Attainment           Specifications for
     Demonstrations for Industrial,          Attainment Demonstration
     Commercial, and Institutional           for Combustion Control at
     Combustion Sources in Ozone             Major Industrial,
     Nonattainment Areas.                    Commercial, and
                                             Institutional Sources in
                                             the Houston-Galveston-
                                             Brazoria Ozone
                                             Nonattainment Area.
    Sec.   117.475--Emission                Sec.   117.2010--Emission
     Specifications for Boilers,             Specifications for
     Process Heaters, and Stationary         Combustion Control at Minor
     Engines and Gas Turbines at Minor       Sources in the HGB Ozone
     Sources.                                Nonattainment Area.

    Sec.   117.206(h)(3)--changes after     Sec.   117.310(e)(3)--
     December 31, 2000, to a unit            changes after December 31,
     subjected to an ESAD in section         2000, to a unit subject to
     117.206(c).                             ESAD in section 117.310(a).
    Sec.   117.475(f)--changes after        Sec.   117.2010(f)--changes
     December 31, 2000 to a unit             after December 31, 2000, to
     subjected to an ESAD in section         a unit subject to an ESAD
     117.475(c).                             in section 117.2010(c).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Section 101.360--Level of Activity Certification
    The July 25, 2007, revisions to section 101.360(a)(3) are
approvable. These non-substantive revisions correctly cross-reference
the recodified stationary source NOX rules in the Texas SIP
at 30 TAC Chapter 117. The table below demonstrates that the cross-
references have been updated correctly and that no previous SIP-
approved section of Chapter 117 was overlooked in the cross-reference
update. These non-substantive revisions do not affect the calculation
of allowances or the functionality of the SIP-approved MECT program.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
    SIP-approved references in Sec.
  101.360  As adopted by TCEQ December        Recodified Chapter 117
  13, 2002, effective January 17, 2003    references  As adopted by TCEQ
 Approved by EPA September 6, 2006 (71   July 25, 2007, effective August
               FR 52664)                             10, 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   101.360(a)(3) refers to           Sec.   101.360(a)(3) refers to
 sections:                                sections:
    Sec.   117.106--Emission                Sec.   117.1210--Emission
     Specifications for Attainment           Specifications for
     Demonstrations for Utility              Attainment Demonstration at
     Electric Generation in Ozone            Major Utility Electric
     Nonattainment Areas.                    Generation Sources in the
                                             HGB Ozone Nonattainment
                                             Area.
    Sec.   117.206--Emission                Sec.   117.310--Emission
     Specifications for Attainment           Specifications for
     Demonstrations for Industrial,          Attainment Demonstration
     Commercial, and Institutional           for Combustion Control at
     Combustion Sources in Ozone             Major Industrial,
     Nonattainment Areas.                    Commercial, and
                                             Institutional Sources in
                                             the Houston-Galveston-
                                             Brazoria Ozone
                                             Nonattainment Area.
    Sec.   117.475--Emission                Sec.   117.2010--Emission
     Specifications for Boilers,             Specifications for
     Process Heaters, and Stationary         Combustion Control at Minor
     Engines and Gas Turbines at Minor       Sources in the HGB Ozone
     Sources.                                Nonattainment Area.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Does Approval of Texas's Rule Revisions Interfere With Attainment,
Reasonable Further Progress, or Any Other Applicable Requirement of the
Act?

    Section 110(l) of the CAA states that EPA cannot approve a SIP
revision if the revision would interfere with any applicable
requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress
towards attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) or any other applicable requirements of the Act. Our review of
the Texas SIP submittals indicate that the revisions will not interfere
with any applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable
further progress towards attainment of the NAAQS or any other
applicable requirements of the Act.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is taking direct final action to approve portions of one
revision to the Texas SIP submitted August 16, 2007. Specifically, EPA
is approving the repeal of the effective date provision at 30 TAC
Chapter 101, Subchapter A, section 101.22. EPA is also approving non-
substantive revisions to the MECT program at 30 TAC Chapter 101,
Subchapter H, Division 3, sections 101.350(10), 101.351(a), 101.353(a),
101.354(a) and (e), and 101.360(a)(3).
    EPA is not taking action on the revisions to the general air
quality definitions at 30 TAC Chapter 101, Subchapter A, section 101.1,
revisions to the Emission Credit Banking and Trading Program at 30 TAC
Chapter 101, Subchapter H, Division 1, sections 101.302, revisions to
Discrete Emission Credit Banking and Trading Program at 30 TAC Chapter
101, Subchapter H, Division 4, sections 101.372 and 101.376, or
revisions to the System Cap Trading Program at 30 TAC Chapter 101,
Subchapter H, Division 5, 101.383, and 101.385. These revisions remain
under review by EPA and available for future actions.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human

health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally
permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February
16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    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 action 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).
    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 September 14, 2009. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action 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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 6, 2009.
Lawrence E. Starfield,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

0
40 CFR part 52 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 SS--Texas

0
2. The table in Sec.  52.2270(c) entitled ``EPA Approved Regulations in
the Texas SIP'' is amended under ``Chapter 101--General Air Quality
Rules'' as follows:
0
a. Under Subchapter A, by removing the entry for Section 101.22,
Effective Date;
0
b. Under Subchapter H, Division 3, by revising the entries for Sections
101.350, 101.351, 101.353, 101.354, and 101.360.
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  52.2270   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                    EPA Approved Regulations in the Texas SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             State
                                                           approval/
          State citation               Title/subject       submittal    EPA approval date        Explanation
                                                             date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Chapter 101--General Air Quality Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Subchapter H--Emissions Banking and Trading
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Division 3--Mass Emissions Cap and Trade Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 101.350..................  Definitions.........     7/25/2007  July 16, 2009        ....................
                                                                        [Insert FR page
                                                                        number where
                                                                        document begins].
Section 101.351..................  Applicability.......     7/25/2007  July 16, 2009        ....................
                                                                        [Insert FR page
                                                                        number where
                                                                        document begins].

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 101.353..................  Allocation of            7/25/2007  July 16, 2009
                                    Allowances.                         [Insert FR page
                                                                        number where
                                                                        document begins].
Section 101.354..................  Allowance Deductions     7/25/2007  July 16, 2009        ....................
                                                                        [Insert FR page
                                                                        number where
                                                                        document begins].

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 101.360..................  Level of Activity        7/25/2007  July 16, 2009
                                    Certification.                      [Insert FR page
                                                                        number where
                                                                        document begins].

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

[FR Doc. E9-16866 Filed 7-15-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 171 (Friday, September 2, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60758-60759]
[FR Doc No: 2016-21133]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 32241; 812-14630]

Starboard Investment Trust and Cavalier Investments, Inc.; Notice
of Application

August 29, 2016.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') for an exemption from section 15(a) of
the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act, as well as from certain
disclosure requirements in rule 20a-1 under the Act, Item 19(a)(3) of
Form N-1A, Items 22(c)(1)(ii), 22(c)(1)(iii), 22(c)(8) and 22(c)(9) of
Schedule 14A under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Sections 6-
07(2)(a), (b), and (c) of Regulation S-X (``Disclosure Requirements'').
The requested exemption would permit an investment adviser to hire and
replace certain sub-advisers without shareholder approval and grant
relief from the Disclosure Requirements as they relate to fees paid to
the sub-advisers.

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

Applicants:  Starboard Investment Trust (the ``Trust''), a Delaware
statutory trust registered under the Act as an open-end management
investment company with multiple series, and Cavalier Investments,
Inc., a Massachusetts corporation registered as an investment adviser
under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the ``Adviser,'' and,
collectively with the Trust, the ``Applicants'').

DATES Filing Dates: The application was filed March 18, 2016, and
amended on June 20, 2016.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing:  An order granting the application
will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary
and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by
mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30
p.m. on September 23, 2016, and should be accompanied by proof of
service on the applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers,
a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing
requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts
bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason
for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be
notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the
Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: The Trust, 116 South
Franklin Street, Rocky Mount, NC 27804; the Adviser, 50 Braintree Hill
Park #105, Braintree, MA 02184.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hae-Sung Lee, Attorney-Adviser, at
(202) 551-7345, or Mary Kay Frech, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Division of

Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

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

Summary of the Application

    1. The Adviser will serve as the investment adviser to the
Subadvised Series pursuant to an investment advisory agreement with the
Trust (the ``Investment Management Agreement'').\1\ The Adviser will
provide the Subadvised Series with continuous and comprehensive
investment management services subject to the supervision of, and
policies established by, each Subadvised Series' board of trustees
(``Board''). The Investment Management Agreement permits the Adviser,
subject to the approval of the Board, to delegate to one or more sub-
advisers (each, a ``Sub-Adviser'' and collectively, the ``Sub-
Advisers'') the responsibility to provide the day-to-day portfolio
investment management of each Subadvised Series, subject to the
supervision and direction of the Adviser. The primary responsibility
for managing the Subadvised Series will remain vested in the Adviser.
The Adviser will hire, evaluate, allocate assets to and oversee the
Sub-Advisers, including determining whether a Sub-Adviser should be
terminated, at all times subject to the authority of the Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-21133 Filed 9-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4)

PPs (2E6424, 2E6481, 3E6585, 3E6544)

EPA has received pesticide petitions from OR-CAL Inc, 29454 Meadowview
Rd., Junction City, OR 97448 on behalf of  IR-4, 500 College Road East,
Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ 08540, proposing pursuant  to Section 408(d)
of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Acid, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to
amend 40 CFR Part 180 by establishing tolerances for residues of
Metaldehyde, in or on the Berry  Group 13; lingonberry; juneberry; and
salal at 0.1  parts per million (ppm), artichoke at 0.05 ppm, cactus,
prickly pear at 0.1 ppm, and watercress at 2.0 ppm.  Lonza Inc. is the
primary source of technical Metaldehyde.  OR-CAL, Inc. prepared and
summarized the following information in support of the pesticide
petitions for Metaldehyde. EPA has determined that the petitions contain
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
support granting of the petitions.  Additional data may be needed before
EPA rules on the petitions.

Residue Chemistry

     1.   Plant Metabolism. Translocation studies using 14C-Metaldehyde
have been conducted in leaf lettuce and sugar beets (MRIDs 43923301 and
43923302). The objective of these studies was to determine if
Metaldehyde would translocate into the leaves of lettuce plants and
foliage and roots of beets plants under experimental conditions
simulating a worse-case field situation. The nature of the 14C-residues
also was investigated. A single application of a liquid formulation
amended with 14C-Metaldehyde was made to soil 18 days after beet seeds
were planted and 38 days after lettuce seeds were planted. The
formulation contained 4% Metaldehyde and was applied at an exaggerated
application rate which represented approximately 14 times the maximum
label use rate, i.e. 13.76 pounds (active ingredient) per acre.

Following application of the test substance, the plants were maintained
according to standard agricultural practices until the time of harvest,
which took place 28 days following treatment for lettuce and 42 days
following treatment for beets. Lettuce (inner and outer leaves) and
beets (foliage and roots) were harvested and stored frozen. The samples
were homogenized and total radioactive residue (TRR) in each sample was
determined by combustion and subsequent liquid scintillation counting
(LSC) analysis. In addition, treated lettuce and beet samples ere
extracted with methylene chloride (DCM), concentrated and analyzed using
reverse-phase high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) in order to
determine the nature of the radioactive residue. Prior to the analytical
phase of the study, the extraction method and the HPLC system used were
successfully validated to extract 100% of Metaldehyde in the sample and
to detect it at an LOQ of 5 ppb and 8 ppb in lettuce.

LSC analysis of the lettuce from the treated lettuce plot showed that
the lettuce contained an average TRR level (expressed as 14C-Metaldehyde
equivalents) of 2.44 ppm from the outer leaves and 2.36 ppm from the
inner leaves. The corresponding values for the beet foliage and roots
were 2.87 and 0.61 ppm, respectively. The average LOQ for combustion
radioassay of the control lettuce and beet samples was < 5 ppb. HPLC
analysis of treated lettuce and beet samples showed that 100% of the
radioactivity in the lettuce and beet samples consisted of parent
14C-Metaldehyde.

On the basis of these studies, the Agency determined that the only
residue of concern was parent compound and granted waivers from
conducting full guideline nature of the residue studies in plants with
Metaldehyde.

2. Analytical Method-Blueberry

Preparation. The samples were received frozen and in good condition at
the Food and Environmental Toxicology Laboratory, University of Florida,
Gainesville, on the following dates: 7/17/00 (North Carolina samples),
7/27/00 (Oregon samples), 8/7/00 (samples from the terminated New Jersey
trial), 9/29/00 (Michigan samples), 7/17/01 (North Carolina samples),
and 8/21/01 (New Jersey samples). The samples were logged in and stored
in a freezer at temperatures generally in the range  -36° to -6°C. On
3/1/01, the air temperature in the freezer rose to +5°C for
approximately 40 minutes as a result of opening the freezer door for
sample inventory. The samples remained frozen at all times and there was
no adverse impact on the study.

Methods. The samples were analyzed using a modification of the reference
method: Analytical method for the determination of Metaldehyde in
lettuce by GC/MS. ENC-3/99. EN-CAS Analytical Laboratories. The
modifications are listed under the Procedure section. Analytical
reference standards of Metaldehyde were received from two
sources-1)Aldrich, lot# 06301HN, 98% pure, received 2/9/00, and 2) Acros
Organic, lot# A005047103, 99% pure, received 1/10/01. Expiration dates
had not been assigned to these standards by the respective suppliers, so
the laboratory personnel assigned dates two years from the dates of
receipt. The Limit of Quantitation (LOQ) was established at 0.03 ppm.
The Limit of Detection (LOD) was established at 0.01 ppm.

Preparation of samples. Frozen samples were processed by chopping with
dry ice in a Hobart food processor. The chopped samples were then place
in the freezer to allow the dry ice to sublime completely.
Representative subsamples were subsequently weighed (15 g or 25 g for
storage fortification) into screw capped 1 pint mason jars and returned
to freezer storage until analysis. Alphabetical letters were used to
designate replicates of subsamples (e.g. 200288A, 200288B).

Sample chopping dates:

Trial ID		Date

00-MI03		10/25/00

00-MI04		10/25/00

00-NC11		08/03/00

00-NC12		08/03/00

00-OR12		08/13/00

01-NC26		08/14/01

01-NJ34		08/23/01

The samples were fortified by adding 1 mL of each fortification solution
to untreated subsamples to yield the required fortification levels. For
example, 1 mL of 0.75 µg/mL solution was added to 15 g control
subsample to obtain a fortification level of 0.05 ppm.

The recovery samples were fortified prior to the addition of the
extraction solvent.

Six control subsamples (25 g each) from the 00-NC 12 trail were
fortified at the 1 ppm on 08/15/00 and then returned to the freezer with
the field samples.

Procedure. (This procedure is a modification of the method as referenced
under the Method section).

Extraction: To a 15 g chopped subsample in a Mason jar (25 g for the
storage study samples), 150 mL of dichloromethane and 50 g of sodium
sulfate were added. The sample jar was then placed on an Eberbach
horizontal platform shaker and shaken for one hour.

Filtration and Evaporation: The entire sample was filtered through a 50
g pad of anhydrous sodium sulfate (pre-washed with dichloromethane) on
top of a glass wool plug, into a 250 mL Erlenmeyer flask. The Mason jar
and the sodium sulfate pad were rinsed with 25 mL methylene chloride and
the rinsate was combined with the filtrate.

The entire filtrate was quantitatively transferred to a graduate
cylinder and measured.

One half the amount was evaporated to approximately 1-5mL using a
turboVap with a water bath temperature below 30°C.

The solution was adjusted to an appropriate volume with dichloromethane
for GC/MS analysis.

All final sample extracts were stored in a laboratory grade freezer at
temperatures ranging from -31°C to -17°C if not analyzed immediately
after extraction.

Recoveries. Blueberry samples were fortified with Metaldehyde at
approximately 0.05 ppm and 1 ppm in order to validate the method.
Recoveries were in the respective ranges of 83-91% and 82-92%.
Concurrent recoveries were conducted at the same levels, with results of
80-103% at 0.05 ppm and 79% at 1 ppm.

3.    Magnitude of the Residue- Blueberry

Six blueberry trials were scheduled in 2000 to develop data in support
of the reregistration of Metaldehyde on berries. There trials were
conducted in Michigan (2 trials), North Carolina (2 trials), New Jersey,
and Oregon. The New Jersey trial was terminated following the completion
of the trial when it was determined that the test substance had been
under-applied by approximately 90%. Two additional trials were conducted
in 2001, one in New Jersey and one in North Carolina. The North Carolina
trial was added because the two trials in that state that had been
conducted in 2000 did not meet protocol requirements for trial
differentiation (the plots in the two trials were on the same soil
series and had the same blueberry cultivar, and the last four
applications in both trials were made on the same dates).  In each trial
except the successful New Jersey trial, applications were made using a
shaker container with a single aperture. In the New Jersey trial, the
applications were made by hand from a beaker containing the test
substance. Deadline®M-P’s (4% Metaldehyde active ingredient) were
applied to the wet or moist soil in a line on each side of the crop, 1-3
feet from the base of the plants. The protocol required that 0.8 lb
ai/acre be applied to the soil in the treated plot. The labeled
concentration of the formulated test substance was 4%; however, the
Certificate of Analysis for the test substance states that the purity
was determined to be 4.27 ± 0.14%. As a result, the actual amount of
active ingredient applied per application was 0.854 lb ai/acre. Five
applications were made in each trial, with a re-treatment interval of 14
days.  Treated and untreated samples were collected on the day of the
last application. The samples were held in frozen storage until delivery
to the analytical laboratory via Federal Express (Oregon trial) or ACDS
freezer truck (all other trials).

Storage stability. Bluberry samples were fortified with Metaldehyde at
0.988 ppm and stored frozen for 273 days. Metaldehyde was recovered at
92%, 84%, and 90% of the original spike level, thus demonstrating the
stability of the compound after frozen storage for nine months.

Results. Although no residues of Metaldehyde were detected at or above
the calculated LOQ ( 0.03 ppm) in any of the samples, all samples
residue results were reported at less than 0.05 ppm, LLMV, as method
validation was not performed at the 0.03 ppm level.

Both fortified and unfortified control samples were analyzed
concurrently with each sample set to demonstrate the absence of
interferences and adequate recovery. The concurrent recoveries at 0.05
ppm ranged from 80% to 103% (average=87%, sd=9, n=6).

The reported residue results were not corrected for recovery(s).

4. Analytical Method-Raspberry

Preparation. The samples were received frozen and intact at the North
Central Region Leader Laboratory, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, on 7/12/00 (Oregon trials) and 8/8/00 (Washington trial). The
samples were logged in and stored frozen at  -27° to -13°C until
extraction and analysis.

Method. The samples were analyzed using a modification of the referenced
method: Analytical method for the determination of Metaldehyde in
lettuce by GC/MS. ENC-3/99. EN-CAS Analytical Laboratories. The
modification is listed on page 3 of this Notice of Filing under the
Procedure section. The Metaldehyde analytical reference standard (lot #
A005047103, 99.4% pure, expiration date 1/12/02) was received on 1/12/00
from Acros Organics of Fair Lawn, N.J. The Limit of Quantitation (LOQ)
was established at 0.05 ppm. The Limit of Detection (LOD) was not
reported.

Recoveries. Untreated raspberry samples collected in a different residue
study were fortified with Metaldehyde at approximately 0.05 and 1 ppm to
validate the method. Recoveries were in the respective ranges 78-108%
and 84-88%. Concurrent recoveries during the analysis of treated and
storage samples were conducted at 0.05, 0.2 and 1 ppm and were in the
composite range 91-112%.

Storage Stability. Raspberry samples were fortified with Metaldehyde at
approximately 1 ppm and stored frozen for 47 days. Recoveries after this
interval were 88%, 95% and 91%, demonstrating the stability of this
compound.

5. Magnitude of the Residue-Raspberry

Two raspberry field trials were conducted in Oregon and one in
Washington to develop data in support of the reregistration of
Metaldehyde on berries. Applications were made using a shaker container
with a single aperture. Deadline® M-P’s were applied to the wet and
moist soil in a line on each side of the crop, 1-3 feet from the base of
the plants. The application rate varied slightly between the two test
sites. The Oregon field cooperators used the labeled amount of active
ingredient (4.0%) , which was repeated in the protocol, to determine the
amount of test substance needed for their plot. The Washington field
cooperators used the percent active ingredient listed on the shipping
information (4.3%) to determine the amount of test substance needed for
their plot. The Certificate of Analysis for the test substance states
that the purity was determined to be 4.27 ± 0.14%. Thus, the actual
amount of active ingredient applied per application was 0.854 lb.
ai/acre (Oregon trials) and 0.795 lb. ai/acre (Washington trial). Five
applications at 14-17 day retreatment intervals were made in each trial,
with treated and untreated samples collected on the day of the last
application. The samples were held in frozen storage until delivery to
the analytical laboratory via Federal Express.

Results. Conduct of these residue trials in Oregon and Washington is
intended to provide data from the primary domestic caneberry-growing
region to support the reregistration of Metaldehyde on berry crops. No
detectable residues above the LOQ of Metaldehyde were found in any of
the untreated samples from the field trials of this study. No detectable
residues above the LOQ of Metaldehyde were found in the treated samples
from the Washington plot. Residues in the range of 0.05-0.06 ppm were
found in the treated samples from the Oregon trials. All of the test
substance had been applied to the ground, suggesting that a small amount
had moved systemically into the fruit.

6. Analytical Method-Artichoke

Preparation.The samples were received frozen at the North Central Region
Leader Laboratory, National Food Safety and Toxicology Center, Michigan
State University, on December 20, 2001. They were logged in and stored
in a freezer at -26° to -4°C until extraction and analysis.

Method. The samples were analyzed using a modification of the reference
method: Analytical method for the determination of Metaldehyde in
lettuce by GC/MS. ENC-3/99. EN-CAS Analytical Laboratories. The
modification is listed on page 3 of this Notice of Filing under the
Procedure section. The Metaldehyde reference standard (99.4% pure, lot
#A005047103, expiration date 1/12/04) was received from Acros Organics
on 1/12/00. The Limit of Quantitation (LOQ) was established at 0.036
ppm. The Limit of Detection (LOD) was not reported.

Recoveries. Artichoke samples were fortified with Metaldehyde at
approximately 0.05 ppm and 1 ppm in order to validate the method and for
concurrent recoveries. The recoveries were in the respective ranges
88-108% and 103-113%.

Storage Stability. Artichoke samples were fortified with Metaldehyde at
approximately 1 ppm and stored frozen for 119 days. Recoveries were
112%, 107%, and 118%, demonstrating the stability of this compound in
frozen storage.

7. Magnitude of the Residue-Artichoke

Three field trials were conducted in Castroville, California, in order
to collect residue samples of Metaldehyde-treated artichokes. Deadline®
M-P’s were applied by hand towards the ground on each side of the
crop, avoiding contamination of the exposed artichoke buds. The
applications were made at the approximate rate of 20 lbs. per acre (0.8
lbs. active ingredient per acre). Seven applications were made in each
trial onto wet soil. The protocol required application intervals of
18-21 days, but two of the applications in trial CA68 and two of the
applications in trial CA66 had to be delayed in order to coordinate the
applications with the irrigation needed to wet the soil. The longest
application interval was 29 days. Treated and untreated samples of
mature artichoke buds were collected on the day of the seventh
application in each trial. The samples were stored in a freezer until
shipment to the analytical laboratory.

Results. Artichoke field trial samples were extracted and analyzed
February 13 and 14, 2002. No residues of Metaldehyde were found in the
control samples. Some treated samples showed trace Metaldehyde residues
but all were <0.05 ppm, the LLMV. The average recovery of the concurrent
quality assurance samples extracted with these field samples were 98% ±
10%.

2. Analytical Method-Prickly Pear Cactus

Preparation. The samples were received frozen and intact at the North
Central Region Leader Laboratory, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, MI on 11/17/00 (trial CA 117 and 12/21/00 (trial CA 118). The
samples were logged in and stored frozen at -25 to -14°C until
extraction and analysis.

Methods. The samples were analyzed using a modification of the reference
method: Analytical method for the determination of Metaldehyde in
lettuce by GC/MS. ENC-3/99. EN-CAS Analytical Laboratories. The
modifications are listed under the Procedure section. The metaldehyde
analytical reference standard (lot #A005047103, 99.4% pure, expiration
date 1/12/02) was received on 1/12/00 from Acros Organics of Fair Lawn,
NJ. The limit of quantitation (LOQ) was established at 0.05 ppm for
cactus fruit and cactus pads.

Procedure. (This procedure is a modification of the method as referenced
under the Method section).

Extraction: To a 15 g chopped subsample in a Mason jar (25 g for the
storage study samples), 150 mL of dichloromethane and 50 g of sodium
sulfate were added. The sample jar was then placed on an Eberbach
horizontal platform shaker and shaken for one hour.

Filtration and Evaporation: The entire sample was filtered through a 50
g pad of anhydrous sodium sulfate (pre-washed with dichloromethane) on
top of a glass wool plug, into a 250 mL Erlenmeyer flask. The Mason jar
and the sodium sulfate pad were rinsed with 25 mL methylene chloride and
the rinsate was combined with the filtrate.

The entire filtrate was quantitatively transferred to a graduate
cylinder and measured.

One half the amount was evaporated to approximately 1-5mL using a
turboVap with a water bath temperature below 30°C.

The solution was adjusted to an appropriate volume with dichloromethane
for GC/MS analysis.

All final sample extracts were stored in a laboratory grade freezer at
temperatures ranging from -31°C to -17°C if not analyzed immediately
after extraction.

Recoveries. The method was validated by fortifying cactus fruit and
cactus pads with metaldehyde at the rates of 0.05020 ppm and 1.004 ppm.
The recoveries in fruit at these rates were in the respective ranges
79-83% and 68-82%. The recoveries in pads at these rates were in the
ranges 91-106% and 93-119%, respectively.

Concurrent recoveries in cactus fruit were 102% and 117% at 0.05020 ppm
and 89% at 1.004 ppm. Concurrent recoveries in cactus pads were 116% and
99% at 0.05020 ppm and 95% at 1.004 ppm.

Storage Stability. Cactus fruit that had been fortified with metaldehyde
at approximately 1 ppm and stored frozen for 78 days yielded recoveries
of 81%, 91% and 98%. Cactus pads that had been fortified with
metaldehyde at approximately 1 ppm and stored frozen for 80 days yielded
recoveries of 86%, 95%, and 101%. These results demonstrate the
stability of metaldehyde in frozen storage during the length of time
that the treated samples were stored until extraction and analysis.

3. Magnitude of the Residue- Prickly Pear Cactus

Two field trails were conducted on a commercial prickly pear cactus farm
in Gonzalez, Monterey County, California. (The two trials had different
dates of initiation and completion). Six applications of Deadline®
M-Ps, 0.8 lb active ingredient per acre, were made to each treated plot
at intervals of 29 and 33 days.  The mini-pellets were applied to the
(wet) ground in a band 1-3 feet from the base of the cactus plants on
each side. The applications were made using

a shaker container with a single aperture. Treated and untreated samples
of fruit and pads were collected following the sixth application, on the
same day as that application. The samples were stored frozen until
shipment to the analytical laboratory via ACDS freezer truck.

Results. No detectable residues of metaldehyde above the LOQ were found
in any of the treated or untreated cactus fruit. No residues of
metaldehyde above the LOQ were found in any of the untreated cactus
pads. Three of the four treated pads had no detectable residue above the
LOQ, whereas the fourth sample had a residue of 0.05 ppm.

B.  Toxicological Profile

1.  Acute toxicity.  Acute mammalian studies include oral, dermal and
inhalation toxicity, eye and skin irritation, and skin sensitization.
The acute oral LD ADVANCE \d3 50 ADVANCE \u3 s in rats and mice were
determined to be 283 and 425 mg/kg, respectively.  The acute dermal LD
ADVANCE \d3 50 ADVANCE \u3  and acute inhalation LC ADVANCE \d3 50
ADVANCE \u3  in rats were determined to be > 5 g/kg and > 15 mg/l,
respectively (MRIDs 131434 and 131429).  When instilled into the eye of
the rabbit, slight transient iridial and conjunctival irritation were
observed during the first 48 hours after instillation (MRID 42068801).
No irritation was observed when Metaldehyde was applied to the skin of
the rabbit (MRID 131971).  In a dermal sensitization study conducted in
guinea pigs, Metaldehyde was shown to be nonsensitizing (MRID 153405).

2.  Genotoxicity. A battery of tests have been conducted including
assays for gene mutation in bacterial cells (MRIDs 131433 and 41553205),
chromosomal aberrations in mammalian cells (MRID 163832), an in vitro
gene mutation assay in mouse lymphoma L5178Y cells (MRIDs 41553206 and
42044007) , an in vivo micronucleus test in the mouse (MRID 42044006).
Metaldehyde was not active in any of these assays.

3.  Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity.  A developmental toxicity
study in rats was conducted at Metaldehdye dose levels of 0, 25, 75 and
150 mg/kg/day (MRID 41656001). The doses were administered via oral
gavage on gestational days 6-15. At the 150 mg/kg/day dose level, marked
treatment-related effects including death were observed. There were no
indications of maternal toxicity at 25 and 75 mg/kg/day. There was no
impact on gestational parameters or external, visceral or skeletal
variations or malformations observed at any dose level tested. The
maternal no-observed effect level (NOEL) was 75 mg/kg/day and the
developmental NOEL was greater than the highest dose level tested of 150
mg/kg/day.

A developmental toxicity study in New Zealand White rabbits was
conducted at Metaldehyde dose levels of 0, 10, 40 and 80 mg/kg/day
(MRID 41590501).  These dose levels were selected on the basis of a
dose range finding study in which clear evidence of maternal toxicity
was observed at dose levels ( 100 mg/kg/day.  The doses were
administered via oral gavage on gestational days 6 – 18.  There were
no effects on maternal body weight, weight gain, clinical signs or
necropsy findings.  There was no impact on gestational parameters, or
external, visceral or skeletal variations or malformations at any of the
dose levels tested.  The maternal and developmental toxicity NOEL was
greater than the highest dose tested (80 mg/kg/day).

A two-generation reproduction study was conducted in rats fed diets
containing 0, 50, 1000 and 2000 ppm of Metaldehyde (MRID 42823101).
Treatment-related effects were limited to the animals in the 2000 ppm
treatment group during the F0 phase of the study.  These effects
included transient decreases in body weight gain and incidences of hind
limb paralysis due to vertebral fractures and luxations in F0 females.
F1 pup body weights also were reduced during the last two weeks of
lactation.  During the F1 phase of the study, depressed body weight
and/or food consumption in the 1000 and 2000 ppm treatment groups was
observed in the maternal animals.  One F1 female in the high dose group
also exhibited prostration and other clinical signs during delivery.
Absolute and relative liver weights were increased in the F1 males and
females at 2000 ppm.  F2 pup body weights in the 2000 ppm treatment
group also were reduced during the lactation period.  No effects on the
reproductive parameters, litter viability or pup survival were observed
during either generation.  The NOEL for adult toxicity was 50 ppm; the
NOEL for offspring was 1000 ppm and the NOEL for reproductive effects
was greater than 2000 ppm.

4.  Subchronic toxicity.   A 21-day dermal toxicity study was conducted
in New Zealand White rabbits (MRID 42063401).  In this study,
Metaldehyde was applied to the shaven backs of the rabbits and wrapped
in gauze moistened with water for six to eight hours per day, five days
per week for three weeks.  Three dosage levels, including the maximum
dose that could be applied in this test system, i.e. 1000 mg/kg/bw, were
evaluated.  With the exception of minor skin irritation at the site of
application, no treatment-related effects were observed.  Therefore, the
NOEL for systemic toxicity was 1000 mg/kg/day.

A 90-day repeated dose dietary neurotoxicity study in Sprague-Dawley
CD® rats was conducted at Metaldehyde dietary concentrations of 0, 100,
500 and 2500 ppm (equivalent to 0, 8, 39 and 185 mg/kg/day,
respectively) (MRID 46223401).  With the exception of one female in the
2500 ppm treatment group that showed loss of hind limb function,
increased respiration, wet fur, and red/brown staining around the
anogenital region, no clinical signs of toxicity were observed in any of
the dose groups.  Females in the 2500 ppm treatment group had decreased
body weight gain during the first week of the study.  No
treatment-related effects were observed in the behavioral, functional or
sensory assessments of neurotoxicity.  The NOEL for neurotoxicity was
considered to be 500 ppm (39 mg/kg/day).

5.  Chronic toxicity.  A six-month chronic toxicity study was conducted
in Beagle dogs (MRID 131432). Metaldehyde dose levels of 0, 20, 60 and
90 mg/kg/day were administered via the diet.  No clear evidence of
systemic toxicity was observed in any of the treatment groups.

A 52-week chronic toxicity study in dogs was conducted by administering
Metaldehyde via the diet at concentrations of 0, 10, 30 and 90 mg/kg/day
(MRID 46378401).  Clinical signs observed in the high-dose group
included ataxia, emesis, salivation, tremor and twitching.  Reduced body
weight gain, changes in hematological and biochemical parameters and in
increased absolute and relative liver weight also were noted for the
animals in this group.  Histopathology revealed morphological changes in
the testes and prostate of the animals treated with 90 mg/kg/day in the
form of an atrophy and/or degeneration of the germinative epithelium
with giant cells.  One mid- and high-dose female and one mid-dose male
died prior to the terminal sacrifice.  The study director attributed all
three deaths to treatment with Metaldehyde and defined the no-observed
adverse effect level (NOAEL) as 10 mg/kg/day on this basis.  Since
there were no other treatment-related effects observed in the 30
mg/kg/day dose group, it is somewhat questionable as to whether or not
the two deaths in the mid dose group should be attributed to
Metaldehyde treatment.

An oncogenicity study was conducted for a period of 78 weeks in Charles
River CD-1 ADVANCE \u3  ADVANCE \d3  mice (MRID 42737201).  Metaldehyde
dietary concentrations of 0, 25, 100 and 300 ppm were evaluated
(equivalent to 4, 16 and 49 mg/kg/day for the males and 0, 5, 20 and
60 mg/kg/day for the females, respectively). The only treatment-related
effect was hepatocellular hypertrophy in the 300 ppm dose group.  Pair
wise comparisons and/or life table analyses did not indicate any
treatment-related effects on survival, tumor incidence or time to tumor.

Because the criteria for a maximum tolerated dose was not satisfied in
the initial oncogenicity study, a second 78-week chronic oncogenicity
study was conducted in Charles River CD-1 ADVANCE \u3  ADVANCE \d3  mice
(MRID 44625101).  In this study, Metaldehyde dietary concentrations of 0
and 1000 ppm were evaluated (equivalent to 0 and 135 mg/kg/day for the
males and 0 and 163 mg/kg/day for the females).  The exposure of mice
to 1000 ppm of Metaldehyde in the diet did not result in clinical signs
of toxicity or changes in survival, body weight, hematology or
toxicologically significant changes in food consumption.
Treatment-related increases in liver weight and histopathological
lesions in the liver of male mice, and to a lesser extent, of female
mice were observed.  Significant histopathologic lesions observed in
Metaldehyde treated mice included hepatocellular hypertrophy in male and
female mice and single cell necrosis, focal and multifocal necrosis,
pigment accumulation, sinusoidal histiocytosis and hepatocellular
adenoma in male mice. A small increase in the incidence of
hepatocellular eosinophilic cell foci or hepatocellular adenoma in
female mice treated with 1000 ppm Metaldehyde also was observed.  The
nature of these changes was consistent with an adaptive hypertrophic
response of the liver to an increase in metabolic demand with subsequent
development of proliferative changes and hepatocellular toxicity.  There
were no other treatment-related findings.

A cell proliferation assay (MRID 44810901) was conducted in order to
further investigate the mechanism by which the increase in benign liver
tumors occurred in the mouse oncogenicity study.  Archival material from
a mouse 90-day dose range-finding study was used for this evaluation.  A
clear dose response for cell proliferation in the liver was observed in
this assay.  These findings support the conclusion that the increased
incidence of benign liver tumors observed in the mouse oncogenicity
study resulted from cell proliferative effects secondary to cytotoxicity
rather than a direct oncogenic effect of Metaldehyde.

A chronic toxicity/oncogenicity study was conducted for a period of
104 weeks in Sprague-Dawley CD® rats (MRID 42203601).  Metaldehyde
dietary concentrations of 0, 50, 1000 or 5000 ppm (equivalent to 0, 2,
44, and 224 mg/kg/day for the males and 0, 3, 60 and 314 mg/kg/day for
the females) were evaluated.  No biologically significant differences in
mortality, clinical signs of toxicity, palpable masses or food
consumption were observed in any of the treatment groups.  Treatment of
both male and female rats with 5000 ppm Metaldehyde resulted in
decreased body weight and weight gain throughout the test period,
increases in both absolute and relative liver weights, and an a
numerical increase in the incidence of females at necropsy with liver
masses and/or nodules at necropsy.  Increased serum globulin and
increased serum cholesterol for females only, hepatocellular hypertrophy
for males and females, and a questionable increase in the incidence of
females with hepatocellular adenomas were observed in the high-dose
group.  These benign neoplasms occurred late in the course of the study
and were within the range of historical control incidences for the same
tumor.  Therefore, this small numerical increase in hepatocellular
adenomas was attributed to an uncommonly low number of such tumors in
the concurrent control animals.  Treatment-related effects in animals
fed diets containing 1000 ppm Metaldehyde were lower body weight and
body weight gain in the males and females for the first year of the
study, increased serum cholesterol for females only, and hepatocellular
hypertrophy for males and females.  The NOEL for systemic toxicity after
104 weeks of dietary administration to rats was 50 ppm (2.0 mg/kg/day
for males and 3.0 mg/kg/day for females).

6.  Animal metabolism.  A study was conducted in Charles River CD
ADVANCE \u3  ADVANCE \d3  rats to determine the absorption,
distribution, metabolism and excretion patterns of 14C-Metaldehyde
following oral dose administration (MRID 42300901).  The results of the
study showed that orally administered Metaldehyde is readily absorbed
from the gastrointestinal tract and quantitatively metabolized to
acetaldehyde, which in turn is converted to acetyl-C0A as it enters the
Krebs cycle.  This allowed the 14C label to be eliminated as 14C-C02 and
to enter the two carbon pool resulting in persistent 14C residues in
tissue.  The majority of the Metaldehyde was eliminated as 14C-CO
ADVANCE \d3 2 ADVANCE \u3 .

7.  Metabolite toxicology.  The only residue found in plants was parent
Metaldehyde.  In animal systems, Metaldehyde is metabolized to
acetaldehyde (a normal body constituent) and CO2.  Therefore, only
parent Metaldehyde is included in the proposed tolerance expressions and
in the risk exposure assessment.

8.  Endocrine effects.  No special studies investigating the potential
estrogenic or other endocrine effects of Metaldehyde have been
conducted.  However, the standard battery of required toxicology studies
has been completed.  These include an evaluation of the potential
effects on reproduction and development, and an evaluation of the
pathology of the endocrine organs following repeated or long-term
exposure to doses that far exceed likely human exposures.  Based on
these studies there is no evidence to suggest that Metaldehyde has an
adverse effect on the endocrine system.

C. Aggregate Exposure

1. Dietary exposure.

Acute and chronic dietary risk assessments were conducted (MRID
46524301) for Metaldehyde using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model
(DEEM) and the USDA Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals
(CSFII, for 1994 to 1996, as contained in DEEM).  For these assessments,
three Tiers were examined (only Tiers III and I are discussed herein):

	Tier I – Highest average field trial (HAFT) residue values were
used    and 100 percent crop treated was assumed (worst-case scenario);

	Tier II - Average field trial values and 100 percent crop treated
were used;

Tier III - Both average field trial values and the estimated percent
crop treated were used (the most realistic evaluation of dietary
exposure).

Proposed tolerances were used to estimate dietary exposure from the
consumption of:

	Artichokes (individual crop);

	Berry crop group;

	Brassica (cole) crop group – broccoli, cabbage, mustard greens;

Citrus crop group – grapefruit, lemons, oranges and processed
commodities;

	Fruiting vegetables (tomato and processed commodities);

	Leafy vegetables (lettuce);

	Prickly pear cactus;

	Strawberry;

	Watercress

The results of both the chronic and acute dietary and drinking water
exposure analyses clearly demonstrate a reasonable certainty that no
harm will result from the proposed uses of Metaldehyde.

A.  Acute  Dietary Exposure.

Based on the DEEM Tier III acute dietary risk assessment, exposure at
the 95th percentile for the overall U.S. population was estimated to be
0.000139 mg/kg/day, which yields a Margin of Exposure (MOE) >530,000
(0.02% of the acute RfD of 0.75 mg/kg bw/day).  The highest exposed
population subgroup, children 1-2 years, had an acute exposure at the
95th percentile that was estimated to be 0.000347 mg/kg bw/day yielding
an MOE > 210,000 (0.05% of the RfD).  The acute exposure analysis shows
that for all populations, the MOE falls well above the acceptable level
of 100.

Based on the DEEM Tier I (worst-case) analysis acute dietary risk
assessment, exposure at the 95th percentile for the overall U.S.
population was estimated to be 0.007983 mg/kg/day, which yields a Margin
of Exposure (MOE) >9000 (1.1% of the RfD). The highest exposed
population subgroup, children 1-2 years, had an acute exposure at the
95th percentile that was estimated to be 0.01812 mg/kg bw/day yielding
an MOE > 4000 (2.4% of the RfD).  This acute exposure analysis also
shows that for all populations, the MOE falls well above the acceptable
level of 100.

B. Chronic Dietary Exposure.

i. Food:  Based on the DEEM Tier III chronic dietary risk assessment,
the exposure for the overall U.S. population was estimated to be
0.000046 mg/kg bw/day, which is 0.2% of the estimated chronic RfD of
0.025 mg/kg bw/day.  The highest exposed subgroup, children 1-2 years,
had a chronic exposure of 0.000114 mg/kg bw/day (0.5% of the RfD).
Based on the DEEM Tier I (worst-case) chronic dietary risk assessment,
the exposure for the overall U.S. population was estimated to be
0.002093 mg/kg bw/day, which is 8.4% of the estimated RfD of 0.025 mg/kg
bw/day.  The highest exposed subgroup, children 1-2 years, had a chronic
exposure of 0.004730 mg/kg bw/day (18.9% of the RfD).

ii. Drinking water: Tier 2 surface water concentration estimates (peak
or acute = 40 ppb and annual average or chronic = 22 ppb), which are
assumed to conservatively represent drinking water residue estimates,
were generated using the FIRST and

PRZM/EXAMS (FQPA Index Reservoir Screening Tool; Version 1.0; PRZM

(3.12 beta/EXAMS (2.98.04) results for instantaneous release and slow
release a.i.; respectively) model (Ma and Cohen, 2005) and used to
estimate potential drinking water exposures.  A conservative estimate of
potential shallow ground water contamination, i.e., 12.4 ppb was also
estimated using SCI-GROW (Cohen and Barnes 2005).  Based on the
worst-case chronic exposure value of 22 ppb the chronic exposure for the
overall U.S. population and children 1-2 years is estimated to be
0.000629 and 0.000627 mg/kg bw/day, respectively (MOEs > 3900).

2.   Non-dietary exposure.

A deterministic non-dietary (non-occupational) risk assessment using the
Residential Exposure Assessment (Rex) model was performed for
Metaldehyde applied to the ground in and around ornamental plants, small
fruit and berry plants, fruit trees, vegetable garden areas (MRID
46524302).  The maximum application rate of 3.5 lbs of active ingredient
(a.i.) per acre was used.  For purposes of a conservative or
“high-end” residential exposure scenario and health risk evaluation,
it was assumed that an adult consumer applies the granular formulation
by hand without gloves.  In accordance with EPA guidance,
post-application exposures associated with formulations applied to
ground areas in and around gardens, ornamentals, and trees were
considered negligible and were not addressed.

A separate assessment for use of Metaldehyde in lawn care applications
was also performed (MRID 46524304).  For purposes of this residential
exposure and risk evaluation, it was conservatively assumed that an
adult consumer applies the formulation by either hand dispersion (spot
treatment) or a push-spreader (broadcast treatment) at the highest
application rate of 1.0 lb a.i./acre for this use pattern.  It was
assumed that gloves are not used.  Potential consumer exposures and
associated health risks were evaluated for adult applicators under these
circumstances. Potential post-application or reentry exposures
associated with broadcast applications were also evaluated.

The results for the non-dietary (non-occupational) risk assessment
indicate that acceptable MOEs exist for the vegetable garden (and by
inference small fruits and berries), ornamental, and tree care hand
dispersion scenarios.  Using worst-case conditions (e.g., no gloves
during application, maximum application rates, 1,000 square feet being
treated for each setting, i.e., gardens, ornamentals and trees), the
overall aggregate MOE for the adult applicator (dermal and inhalation
routes) was approximately 400 assuming the same person applied granules
to all three settings (vegetable gardens, ornamentals, and trees) on the
same day.  This aggregate MOE would be increased to approximately 3,760
if gloves were used per label recommendations.  More realistically, an
adult might apply granules to only one of the three scenarios.  The
scenario-specific overall or total MOEs (dermal and inhalation combined
as total MOE = [1 / (1 / dermal MOE) + (1 / inhalation MOE)] are
identical, i.e., approximately 1220, for vegetable garden, ornamental
plant, and tree care.  If the applicator used gloves, per label
instructions, the scenario-specific total MOE would be approximately
11,280 for vegetable garden, ornamental plant, and tree care.  The
increase in the MOE is attributed to the glove-based dermal unit
exposure value of 71 mg/lb a.i., versus the estimated “no glove”
dermal unit exposure value of 710 mg/lb a.i.

The results of the screening-level, non-dietary (residential) consumer
applicator (dermal and inhalation) and post-application (adult dermal,
and child dermal and incidental ingestion) risk analysis for Metaldehyde
use for lawn care, demonstrate that acceptable Margins of Exposure
(MOEs) exist for various lawn care methods evaluated, i.e., spot
treatment of lawns via hand dispersion of granules or low pressure
hand-wand spraying, or granular broadcast treatment of lawns via
push-spreaders.  Using worst-case conditions (e.g., no gloves during
application, maximum application rates, high contact reentry activities
on the day of broadcast treatment), the overall total intake ranged from
approximately 0.232 mg/kg/day for the adult applicator (dermal and
inhalation routes; MOE= 3950) for granular lawn broadcast treatment
(push spreader) to 0.0328 mg/kg/day (MOE = 30,370) for spot treatment
using a low pressure hand-wand sprayer.  The applicator MOEs would
increase significantly if gloves were used.  The overall or total intake
(via dermal and incidental oral exposure) for children (1 – 6 yrs) in
the case of the granular lawn broadcast scenario was approximately 0.403
mg/kg/day (MOE= 1,700).  This MOE is conservative, given assumptions
regarding reentry on the day of application and two hours of high
contact activity on the lawn, including frequent hand to mouth transfer.

Based on this assessment, it can be concluded that the potential
residential/consumer application exposures associated with the use of
Metaldehyde-based products for slug and snail control are associated
with a “reasonable certainty of no harm.”

D. Cumulative Effects

There is no evidence to indicate or suggest that Metaldehyde has any
toxic effects on mammals that would be cumulative with those of any
other chemicals.

E. Safety Determination

Acute and chronic dietary risk assessments were conducted for
Metaldehyde using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM).  Dietary
exposure to Metaldehyde was based on the following crop group uses:
artichokes, Berry crop group, Brassica (cole) crop group, Citrus crop
group and processed commodities, tomato and processed commodities,
lettuce, prickly pear cactus, strawberry, and watercress.

 LISTNUM 2 \l 1 	U.S. Population:  Using the Tier III data (most
representative of actual exposure), for the overall U.S. population, the
predicted acute exposure is 0.000139 mg/kg bw/day.  Based on the acute
NOAEL and reference dose (75 and 0.75 mg/kg bw/day, respectively), this
exposure estimate results in intake of 0.02% or less of the estimated
aRfD at the 95th percentile (MOE > 530,000).  Using the Tier III data
for the U.S. population, the predicted chronic exposure for the overall
U.S. population is 0.000046 mg/kg bw/day, or 0.2% of the estimated cRfD
(based on the chronic NOAEL of 2.5 mg/kg bw/day;  cRfD of 0.0025 mg/kg
bw day).

Because the predicted exposures, expressed as percentages of the aRfD
and cRfD are well below 100%, there is reasonable certainty that no
acute or chronic effects in the U.S. population would result from
dietary exposure to Metaldehyde.

L

M

U

V

hÅ

hÅ

@

$

@

萏Ԑ萑*葞Ԑ葠*摧僘«܀000347 mg/kg bw/day, or 0.05% of the aRfD
(MOE > 210,000).  The estimated chronic exposure was 0.000114 mg/kg
bw/day equivalent to 0.5% of the cRfD.

Because the predicted exposures, expressed as percentages of the aRfD
and cRfD are well below 100%, there is reasonable certainty that no
acute or chronic effects would result in the population subgroup with
the highest level of exposure (children 1-2 years) from dietary exposure
to Metaldehyde.

F. International Tolerances

No incompatibilities with international tolerances are expected.

 PAGE

 PAGE   1


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 232 (Monday, December 3, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62316-62317]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26206]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP19-20-000]

Notice of Application To Amend Section 3 Authorizations: Golden
Pass Products LLC and Golden Pass LNG Terminal LLC

    Take notice that on November 16, 2018, Golden Pass LNG Terminal LLC
(Golden Pass LNG) and Golden Pass Products, LLC (GP Products), Three
Allen Center, 333 Clay Street, Houston, Texas 77002, filed in Docket
No.CP19-20-000 an application pursuant to section 3 of the Natural Gas
Act (NGA) and Part 153 of the Commission's regulations for authority to
transfer GP Product's existing authorization under NGA Section 3 to
site, construct and operate liquefied natural Gas (LNG) export
facilities \1\ to Golden Pass LNG, which currently owns and operates
LNG import facilities \2\ that will be contiguous to and interconnected
with the LNG export facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Golden Pass Products LLC and Golden Pass Pipeline LLC, 157
FERC ] 61,222 (2016).
    \2\ Golden Pass LNG Terminal LP and Golden Pass Pipeline LP, 112
FERC ].61,041 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Questions regarding this filing may be directed to Blaine Yamagata,
Vice President and General Counsel, Golden Pass LNG, Three Allen
Center, Suite 802, 333 Clay Street, Houston, Texas 77002; or to Kevin
M. Sweeney, Law Office of Kevin M. Sweeney, 1625 K Street NW,
Washington, DC 20006, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    This filing is available for review at the Commission's Washington,
DC offices, or may be viewed on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``e-Library'' link. Enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected], or call toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for
TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this Project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceeding for this project should file with
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18
CFR 385.214, 385.211 (2016), by the comment date below. A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission, and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit filings made with the Commission by mail, hand delivery, or
internet, in accordance with Rule 2001 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure, id. 385.2001. A copy must be served on every
other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask
for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene to have comments
considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the
Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two
copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The
Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate
action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to
make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules
require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the
internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the
instructions on the Commission's website under the ``e-filing'' link.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.
    As of the February 27, 2018 date of the Commission's order in
Docket No. CP16-4-001, the Commission will apply its revised practice
concerning out-of-time motions to intervene in any new Natural Gas Act
section 3 or section 7 proceeding. Persons desiring to become a party
to a certificate proceeding are to intervene in a timely manner. If
seeking to intervene out-of-time, the movant is required to ``show good
cause why the time limitation should be waived,'' and should provide
justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d)(1) of
the Commission's Rules and Regulations.
    If the Commission decides to set the application for a formal
hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, the Commission will issue
another notice describing that

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on December 10, 2018.

    Dated: November 27, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-26206 Filed 11-30-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P