[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 5, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19482-19484]
[FR Doc No: 2016-07372]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-6537; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-154-AD;
Amendment 39-18457; AD 2016-07-12]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. This AD was
prompted by reports of cracking of the aft fixed fairing (AFF) of the
pylons due to fatigue damage of the structure. This AD requires
repetitive inspections for damage and cracking of the AFF of the
pylons, and repair if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and
correct damage and cracking of the AFF of the pylons, which could
result in detachment of a pylon and consequent reduced structural
integrity of the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective May 10, 2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 10,
2016.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax
+33 5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet
http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
6537.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
6537; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A318,
A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Federal Register on November 30, 2015 (80 FR 74729) (``the NPRM'').
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2014-0154, dated July 2, 2014 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model
A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    On aeroplanes equipped with post-mod 33844 CFM pylons, several
operators have reported cracks on the Aft Fixed Fairing (AFF). After
material analysis, it appears that

the pylon AFF structure, especially on this configuration, is
subject to fatigue constraint damage which could lead to pylon AFF
cracks.
    Further to these findings, Airbus released Alert Operators
Transmission (AOT) A54N002-12 which provides instructions to inspect
the pylon AFF, applicable only to aeroplanes incorporating Airbus
production mod 33844 on CFM pylons. More recently, Airbus issued
Service Bulletin (SB) A320-54-1027, superseding AOT A54N002-12.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
detachment of a pylon AFF from the aeroplane, possibly resulting in
injuries to persons on the ground.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires
repetitive detailed inspections (DET) of the pylon AFF and,
depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective
action(s).

    Since the MCAI was issued, EASA has clarified that the detachment
of a pylon AFF from the airplane could result in damage to the
airplane; such damage could result in reduced structural integrity of
the airplane.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
6537.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Explanation of Change to the Proposed Applicability

    We have removed Airbus Model A320-215 airplanes from the
Applicability statement of this AD; this model is not type certificated
in the U.S.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this AD with the change described
previously, including minor editorial changes. We have determined that
these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-54-1027, dated April 10,
2014. This service information describes procedures for inspections for
damage and cracking of the AFF of the pylons, and repair if necessary.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 69 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We also estimate that it takes about 4 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of
this AD on U.S. operators to be $23,460, or $340 per product.
    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2016-07-12 Airbus: Amendment 39-18457. Docket No. FAA-2015-6537;
Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-154-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective May 10, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A318-111 and -112, airplanes;
Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, and -115 airplanes; Model A320-
211, -212, and -214 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -211, -212,
and -213 airplanes; certificated in any category; all manufacturer
serial numbers on which Airbus Modification 33844 has been embodied
in production.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 54, Nacelles/
pylons.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracking of the aft fixed
fairing (AFF) of the pylons due to fatigue damage of the structure.
We are issuing this AD to detect and correct damage and cracking of
the AFF of the pylons, which could result in detachment of a pylon
and consequent reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Repetitive Inspections

    At the later of times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2),
or (g)(1) and (g)(3) of this AD, as applicable: Do a detailed
inspection for damage and cracking of the AFF of the pylons, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A320-54-1027, dated April 10, 2014. Repeat the inspection
thereafter at

intervals not to exceed 2,500 flight cycles or 3,750 flight hours,
whichever occurs first.
    (1) For all airplanes: Before exceeding 5,000 flight cycles or
7,500 flight hours, whichever occurs first since the airplane's
first flight.
    (2) For airplanes on which the inspection specified in Airbus
All Operators Transmission (AOT) A54N002-12 has been done as of the
effective date of this AD: Within 2,500 flight cycles or 3,750
flight hours since the most recent accomplishment of maintenance
planning data (MPD) Task ZL 371-01, or since doing the most recent
inspection specified in Airbus AOT A54N002-12, whichever occurs
first.
    (3) For airplanes on which the inspection specified in Airbus
AOT A54N002-12 has not been done as of the effective date of this
AD: Within 750 flight cycles or 1,500 flight hours after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.

(h) Repair

    If any crack is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (g) of this AD: Before further flight, repair in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A320-54-1027, dated April 10, 2014. Accomplishment of this
repair does not terminate the repetitive inspections required by
paragraph (g) of this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the International
Branch, send it to ATTN: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must
specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): If any service information
contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(j) Related Information

    Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI)
EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0154, dated July 2, 2014, for
related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2015-6537.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-54-1027, dated April 10, 2014.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For Airbus service information identified in this AD,
contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 22, 2016.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.

[FR Doc. 2016-07372 Filed 4-4-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 60 (Tuesday, March 29, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17375-17376]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06932]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2015-7484; Airspace Docket No. 15-AGL-24]

Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace for the Following
Minnesota Towns: Rochester, MN; and St. Cloud, MN

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule, delay of effective date, correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action changes the effective date of a final rule
published in the Federal Register of February 8, 2016, amending Class E
surface area airspace and Class E airspace designated as an extension
at Rochester International Airport, Rochester, MN; and St. Cloud
Regional Airport, St. Cloud, MN. This correction adds the part-time
Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) language inadvertently removed from the Class
E surface area descriptions for the above airports. Additionally,
adjustment is made to the geographic coordinates of Rochester
International Airport in the Class D airspace and Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface. The Title is also
amended to include Class D airspace.

DATES: This correction is effective 0901 UTC, April 28, 2016, and the
effective date of the rule amending 14 CFR part 71, published on
February 8, 2016 (81 FR 6448) is delayed to 0901 UTC April 28, 2016.
The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by
reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51,
subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of
conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    The Federal Register published a final rule amending Class E
airspace at Rochester International Airport, Rochester, MN, and St.
Cloud Regional Airport, St. Cloud, MN (81 FR 6448, February 8, 2016)
Docket No. FAA-2015-7484. Subsequent to publication, the FAA determined
that the part-time NOTAM language in the Class E surface area
description was inadvertently removed in error. Potential safety
concerns were identified due to the possibility for confusion in
determining the operating rules and equipment requirements in the
Rochester International Airport and St. Cloud Regional Airport terminal
areas. The concerns were based on the opportunity for part-time Class D
surface area airspace and continuous Class E surface area airspace to
be active at the same time.
    To resolve these concerns, the FAA is keeping the part-time NOTAM
language in the Class E surface area description to retain it as part-
time airspace supplementing the existing part-time Class D surface area
airspace at Rochester International Airport and St. Cloud Regional
Airport. Also, the FAA found in amending the airport reference point
for the Rochester International Airport, additional existing controlled
airspace was inadvertently omitted from the rule. This action adds
adjustment of the geographic coordinates of the airport in Class D
airspace and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface.
    These are administrative corrections and do not affect the
controlled airspace boundaries or operating requirements supporting
operations in the Rochester International Airport and St. Cloud
Regional Airport terminal areas.

Correction to Final Rule

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, in the
Federal Register of February 8, 2016 (81 FR 6448) FR Doc. 2016-02283),
Amendment of Class D and E Airspace for the Following Minnesota Towns;
Rochester, MN; and St. Cloud, MN, is corrected as follows:

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    On page 6448, column 3, line 27, remove ``Amendment of Class E
Airspace for the Following Minnesota Towns: Rochester, MN; and St.
Cloud, MN'' and add in its place ``Amendment of Class D and Class E
Airspace for the Following Minnesota Towns: Rochester, MN; and St.
Cloud, MN''.

AGL MN E2 Rochester, MN [Corrected]

    On page 6449, column 3, after line 49, add the following text:

    ``This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific
dates and times established by a Notice to Airmen. The effective
date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the
Airport/Facility Directory.''

AGL MN E2 St. Cloud, MN [Corrected]

    On page 6449, column 3, after line 59, add the following text:

    ``This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific
dates and times established by a Notice to Airmen. The effective
date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the
Airport/Facility Directory.''

    On page 6450, column 1, after line 24, add the following text:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

AGL MN D Rochester, MN [Corrected]

Rochester International Airport, MN
    (Lat. 43[deg]54'30'' N., long. 92[deg]30'00'' W.)
Rochester VOR/DME
    (Lat. 43[deg]46'58'' N., long. 92[deg]35'49'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
3,800 feet MSL within a 4.3-mile radius of the Rochester
International Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective
during the specific dates and times established in advance by a
Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be
published continuously in the Airport/Facility Directory.

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

* * * * *

AGL MN E5 Rochester, MN [Corrected]

Rochester International Airport, MN
    (Lat. 43[deg]54'30'' N., long. 92[deg]30'00'' W.)
Rochester VOR/DME
    (Lat. 43[deg]46'58'' N., long. 92[deg]35'49'' W.)
Mayo Clinic-St. Mary's Hospital, MN
    (Lat. 44[deg]01'11'' N., long. 92[deg]28'59'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.8-mile radius of the Rochester International Airport, and
within 3.2 miles each side of the Rochester VOR/DME 028[deg] radial
extending from the 6.8-mile radius to 7.9 miles southwest of the
airport, within 5.3 miles southwest and 4 miles northeast of the
Rochester northwest localizer course extending from the 6.8-mile
radius to 20 miles northwest of the airport, within 5.3 miles
northeast and 4 miles southwest of the Rochester southeast localizer
course extending from the 6.8-mile radius to 17.3 miles southeast of
the airport and within a 6.4-mile radius of the St. Mary's Hospital
Heliport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on March 21, 2016.
Robert W. Beck,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2016-06932 Filed 3-28-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: August 27, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 167)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 50556-50563]
[DOCID:fr27au08-5]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0987; FRL-8376-4]

Fenbuconazole; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for combined residues
of the fungicide fenbuconazole, alpha-[2-(4-

chlorophenyl)- ethyl]-alpha-phenyl-3-(1H-1,2,4-triazole)- 1-
propanenitrile, and its metabolites RH-9129, cis-5-(4-chlorophenyl)-
dihydro-3-phenyl-3-(1H-1,2,4- triazole-1-ylmethyl)-2-3 H-furanone, and
RH-9130, trans-5-(4- chlorophenyl)dihydro-3-phenyl-3- (1H-1,2,4-
triazole-1-ylmethyl)-2-3 H- furanone, expressed as fenbuconazole in or
on pepper (7E7256). The Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4)
requested this tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA) on behalf of the registrant, Dow AgroSciences LLC.

DATES: This regulation is effective August 27, 2008. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before October 27, 2008,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0987. To access the
electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced
Search,'' then ``Docket Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where
indicated and select the ``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on
the regulations.gov website to view the docket index or access
available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the
docket index available in regulations.gov. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or,
if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in
Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr.,
Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sidney Jackson, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those
engaged in the following activities:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to
provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by
this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in
determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document?

    In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this Federal
Register document through the electronic docket at http://
www.regulations.gov, you may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access a
frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at
40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR
site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, any person may file an objection to
any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those
objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this
regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part
178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0987 in the subject line on the first page of
your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or
delivered to the Hearing Clerk as required by 40 CFR part 178 on or
before October 27, 2008.
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit this copy, identified by docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0987 by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Petition for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of January 23, 2008 (73 FR 3964) (FRL-8345-
7), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
7E7256) by IR-4, 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ
08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.480 be amended by
establishing tolerances for combined residues of the fungicide
fenbuconazole, alpha-[2-(4-chlorophenyl)- ethyl]-alpha-phenyl-3-(1H-
1,2,4-triazole)- 1-propanenitrile, and its metabolites RH-9129, cis-5-
(4-chlorophenyl)- dihydro-3-phenyl-3-(1H-1,2,4- triazole-1-ylmethyl)-2-
3 H-furanone, and RH-9130, trans-5-(4- chlorophenyl)dihydro-3-phenyl-3-
(1H-1,2,4-triazole-1-ylmethyl)-2-3 H- furanone, expressed as
fenbuconazole in or on pepper at 0.40 parts per million (ppm). That
notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Dow
AgroSciences LLC, the registrant, which is available to the public in
the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received
in response to the notice of filing.
    In addition, Sec. 180.480(a)(1), is revised to remove reference to
``time-limited tolerance'' as this section is dedicated to, and only
contains, permanent

tolerances. Also, Sec. 180.480(a)(2) is deleted in its entirety as it
relates solely to time-limited tolerances in paragraph (a)(1) and there
are no such tolerances in paragraph (a)(1). In addition, the time-
limited tolerance under Sec. 180.480(b) Section 18 emergency
exemptions, for blueberry at 1.0 ppm that expired on 12/31/07 is
deleted.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical
residue....''
    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors
specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to
make a determination on aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for
tolerances for combined residues of fenbuconazole on pepper at 0.40
ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with
establishing tolerances follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    Fenbuconazole has low acute toxicity and is neither skin or eye
irritants nor a dermal sensitizer. In subchronic and chronic feeding
studies the liver was the main target of toxicity. At the LOAEL in the
subchronic studies, there were changes in liver histopathology,
predominantly hepatocellular hypertrophy. At doses higher than the
LOAEL in the rat, the thyroid was a secondary target organ with
increased follicular cell size. In the chronic studies, liver effects
were seen (including hepatocellular hypertrophy and vacuolization,
changes in liver enzymes, and increased liver weights), as well as
decreased body weight gains. Again, in the chronic rat study, the
thyroid was a secondary target with increased thyroid and parathyroid
weights and thyroid follicular cell hypertrophy. In addition, increased
mean T4 and decreased TSH were found in the high-dose rats near the end
of the study. In the chronic dog study, kidney and adrenal weights were
also increased. Males and females throughout the studies appeared to be
equally sensitive to fenbuconazole toxicity, except in the chronic
mouse study, where male mice appeared to be more sensitive than the
females.
    In the rat and rabbit developmental toxicity studies and the two
generation study in rats, all effects in the pups occurred in the
presence of maternal toxicity, including changes in body weight and
body weight gains in rats and decreased food consumption and clinical
signs in rabbits. Developmental effects included increased post-
implantation loss and decreased fetuses per dam in the rat
developmental study; increased early resorptions in the rabbit
developmental study; and decreased mean pup body weight, increased
number of stillborn pups, decreased number of total offspring
delivered, and decreased viability index of pups in the two generation
study in rats. No increased qualitative or quantitative susceptibility
was observed in any of the studies. There was no evidence of
neurotoxicity in any of the studies available in the toxicology
database.
    Fenbuconazole is not mutagenic. Fenbuconazole is classified as a
Group C, possible human carcinogen, and febuconazole's human cancer
risk is assessed quantitatively by a low dose extrapolation model
applied to the experimental animal tumor data.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by fenbuconazole as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://
www.regulations.gov in document Fenbuconazole (7E7256) - Human Health
Risk Assessment for the Proposed Use on Peppers at page 14 in docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0987-0003.

B. Toxicological Endpoints

    For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, a toxicological point of departure (POD) is
identified as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk
assessment. The POD may be defined as the highest dose at which no
adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) in the toxicology study
identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment. However, if a
NOAEL cannot be determined, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of
concern are identified (the LOAEL) or a Benchmark Dose (BMD) approach
is sometimes used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors (UFs)
are used in conjunction with the POD to take into account uncertainties
inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and
in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population
as well as other unknowns. Safety is assessed for acute and chronic
dietary risks by comparing aggregate food and water exposure to the
pesticide to the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic
population adjusted dose (cPAD). The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. Aggregate short-, intermediate-
, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing food, water, and
residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the margin of exposure
(MOE) called for by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded.
This latter value is referred to as the Level of Concern (LOC).
    For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of
exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates
risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect
greater than that expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/
pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for fenbuconazole used for
human risk assessment can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in
document Fenbuconazole (7E7256) - Human Health Risk Assessment for the
Proposed Use on Peppers at page 25 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-
0987-0003.

C. Exposure Assessment

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

existing fenbuconazole tolerances in (40 CFR 180.480). EPA assessed
dietary exposures from fenbuconazole in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
    In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used the Dietary Exposure
Evaluation Model (DEEM-FCID, Version 2.03), which uses food consumption
information from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intakes by
Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels in food, the acute dietary
exposure analysis is based on tolerance-level residues and 100% crop
treated assumptions. The only population subgroup that is relevant for
this acute assessment is females of child-bearing age (i.e., females
13-49 years old).
    ii. Chronic(non-cancer) exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary
(food + water) exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data
from the USDA 1994-1996 and 1998 CSFII. As to residue levels in food,
the chronic (non-cancer) dietary exposure analyses uses average
residues from field trials. For many of the crops, separate studies
were submitted and reviewed. For those crops, multiple averages were
calculated and the highest average value was used in the analysis. The
non-cancer dietary analysis assumes 100% crop treated.
    iii. Cancer. The cancer exposure analysis uses average residues
from field trials. In addition, estimates of average percent crop
treated were used for certain commodities.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and
information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in
food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been
measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require
pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after
the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect,
demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels
anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins
as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under
FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later
than 5 years from the date of issuance of these tolerances.
    Anticipated residue data were used in the chronic (non-cancer) and
cancer dietary risk analyses but not in the acute dietary risk
analysis. For many crops, the anticipated residues used were the
highest per-study-volume average residue value from the field trial
studies for each crop that were submitted by the registrant.
    Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data
on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary
risk only if:
     Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a
valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop
is likely to contain the pesticide residue.
     Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group.
     Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food
consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not
understate exposure for the population in such area.

In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any
estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate
of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require
registrants to submit data on PCT.
    In the cancer dietary exposure analysis, the Agency used the
following estimated PCT information:
    Apples 1%, apricots 10%, blueberries 40%, cherries 20%, grapefruit
40%, nectarines 10%, oranges 1%, peaches 15%, pecans 15%, prunes 1%,
and tangerines 1%.
    In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States
Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service
(USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and the National Pesticide Use
Database for the chemical/crop combination for the most recent 6 years.
EPA uses an average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis. The average
PCT figure for each existing use is derived by combining available
public and private market survey data for that use, averaging across
all observations, and rounding to the nearest 5%, except for those
situations in which the average PCT is less than one. In those cases,
1% is used as the average PCT and 2.5% is used as the maximum PCT. EPA
uses a maximum PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The maximum PCT
figure is the highest observed maximum value reported within the recent
6 years of available public and private market survey data for the
existing use and rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5%.
    The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in the
preceding paragraphs have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT
estimates are derived from sources as discussed in the preceding
paragraphs including Federal and private market survey data, which are
reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that
the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an
underestimation. As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption
information and consumption information for significant subpopulations
is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating
the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional
groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment
process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency
to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to
residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than
the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does
not have available reliable information on the regional consumption of
food to which fenbuconazole may be applied in a particular area.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models to determine the drinking water
concentrations that were used in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for fenbuconazole. These simulation models take into account
data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of
fenbuconazole. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models
used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://
www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    The assessments included conservative estimated drinking water
concentrations (EDWC) based on either the pepper or the cherry use.
Modeled surface water EDWCs are based on the maximum label application
rate to peppers (acute value) or cherries (chronic and cancer values)
while the groundwater EDWC is based on the maximum label application
rate to cherries. The acute assessment is highly conservative with
respect to evaluating potential impacts of dietary exposure to
fenbuconazole on human health. The chronic (non-cancer) and cancer
assessments are moderately conservative with respect to evaluating
potential impacts of dietary exposure to fenbuconazole on human health.
    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-
GROW) models, the estimated drinking

water concentrations (EDWCs) of fenbuconazole for acute exposures are
estimated to be 24.1 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and
0.031 ppb for ground water. The EDWCs for chronic exposures for non-
cancer assessments are estimated to be 16.5 ppb for surface water and
0.031 ppb for ground water. The EDWCs for chronic exposures for cancer
assessments are estimated to be 11.7 ppb for surface water and 0.031
ppb for ground water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Fenbuconazole is not
registered for any specific use patterns that would result in
residential exposure.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    Fenbuconazole is a member of the triazole-containing class of
pesticides. Although conazoles act similarly in plants (fungi) by
inhibiting ergosterol biosynthesis, there is not necessarily a
relationship between their pesticidal activity and their mechanism of
toxicity in mammals. Structural similarities do not constitute a common
mechanism of toxicity. Evidence is needed to establish that the
chemicals operate by the same, or essentially the same, sequence of
major biochemical events. In conazoles, however, a variable pattern of
toxicological responses is found. Some are hepatotoxic and
hepatocarcinogenic in mice. Some induce thyroid tumors in rats. Some
induce developmental, reproductive, and neurological effects in
rodents. Furthermore, the conazoles produce a diverse range of
biochemical events including altered cholesterol levels, stress
responses, and altered DNA methylation. It is not clearly understood
whether these biochemical events are directly connected to their
toxicological outcomes. Thus, there is currently no evidence to
indicate that conazoles share common mechanisms of toxicity, and EPA is
not following a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of
toxicity for the conazoles. For information regarding EPA's procedures
for cumulating effects from substances found to have a common mechanism
of toxicity, refer to EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/ pesticides/
cumulative.
    Fenbuconazole is a triazole-derived pesticide. This class of
compounds can form the common metabolite 1,2,4-triazole and two
triazole conjugates (triazole alanine and triazole acetic acid). To
support existing tolerances and to establish new tolerances for
triazole-derivative pesticides, including fenbuconazole, U.S. EPA
conducted a human health risk assessment for exposure to 1,2,4-
triazole, triazole alanine, and triazole acetic acid resulting from the
use of all current and pending uses of any triazole-derived fungicide.
The risk assessment is a highly conservative, screening-level
evaluation in terms of hazards associated with common metabolites
(e.g., use of a maximum combination of uncertainty factors) and
potential dietary and non-dietary exposures (i.e., high end estimates
of both dietary and non-dietary exposures). In addition, the Agency
retained the additional 10X FQPA safety factor for the protection of
infants and children. The assessment includes evaluations of risks for
various subgroups, including those comprised of infants and children.
The Agency's complete risk assessment is found in the propiconazole
reregistration docket at http://www.regulations.gov, docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0497. Additional information regarding the use proposed
for fenbuconazole in this action can also be found at http://
www.regulations.gov in document: ``Dietary Exposure Assessments for the
Common Triazole Metabolites 1,2,4-Triazole, Triazolylalanine,
Triazolylacetic Acid, and Triazolylypyruvic Acid; Updated to Include
New Uses of Fenbuconazole, Ipconazole, Metconazole, Tebuconazole, and
Uniconazole; and a Change in Plant-back Restriction for Tetraconazole''
in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0987-0006.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(c) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA safety
factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. Available data provided no
indication of increased susceptibility of rats or rabbits to in utero
and/or postnatal exposure to fenbuconazole. In the prenatal
developmental study in rats and rabbits and the 2-generation study in
rats, effects in the offspring were observed only at or above those
treatment levels which resulted in maternal toxicity.
    The degree of concern for infants and children exposed to
fenbuconazole in utero and/or postnatally is low; there are no residual
uncertainties. The toxicology database for fenbuconazole is complete
and adequate for risk assessment purposes. Acceptable developmental
studies in rats and rabbits and the 2-generation reproduction study in
rats did not show evidence of increased susceptibility in offspring
exposed to fenbuconazole in utero and/or postnatally. A NOAEL for acute
effects has been selected for the subpopulation females (13-49 years
old) based on developmental effects (increased resorptions and
decreased live fetuses per dam) seen at the LOAEL in the developmental
rat study. By regulating on the effects of concern for this
subpopulation, the risk assessment is protective of potential effects
to infants and children.
    3. Conclusion. There is a complete toxicity data base for
fenbuconazole and exposure data are complete or are estimated based on
data that reasonably account for potential exposures. EPA has
determined that reliable data show the safety of infants and children
would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That
decision is based on the following findings:
    i. The toxicity database for fenbuconazole is complete.
    ii. There is no indication that fenbuconazole is a neurotoxic
chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study
or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence that fenbuconazole results in increased
susceptibility in utero to rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. Although somewhat refined, the dietary food exposure
assessments were based on reliable data that will not underestimate
exposure to fenbuconazole residues in food. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure

to fenbuconazole in drinking water. These assessments will not
underestimate the exposure and risks posed by fenbuconazole.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic pesticide exposures are
safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the aPAD and cPAD.
The aPAD and cPAD represent the highest safe exposures, taking into
account all appropriate SFs. EPA calculates the aPAD and cPAD by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the probability of additional cancer cases given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the MOE called for
by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to fenbuconazole will occupy 3.1 % of the aPAD for females 13-49 years
old, the only subgroup of concern because of the toxicological
properties of fenbuconazole.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
fenbuconazole from food and water will utilize 6.8% of the cPAD for all
infants less than 1 year old, the population group receiving the
greatest exposure, and 2.3% of the cPAD for the general U.S.
population. There are no residential uses for fenbuconazole that result
in chronic exposure. EPA does not expect aggregate exposure to exceed
100% of the cPAD for any population subgroup.
    3. Short- and intermediate-term risks. Short- and intermediate-term
aggregate exposures take into account short-term residential exposure
plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background
exposure level). Fenbuconazole is not registered for any use patterns
that would result in residential exposure. Therefore, the aggregate
risk is the sum of the risk from exposure to fenbuconazole through food
and water and will not be greater than the chronic aggregate risk.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Dietary exposure
(food + water) is the only source of exposure to fenbuconazole that is
expected to be chronic (cancer exposure is considered to be life-time
exposure). The chronic (cancer) aggregate exposure and risk estimates
are based on those for the general U.S. population group. In this case
the risk is based on a cancer potency (Q1*) value of 3.59 x
10-\3\ and a dietary exposure to fenbuconazole of 0.000473
mg/kg/day. The estimated cancer risk that resulted from this assessment
is 1.7 x 10-\6\. Typically, EPA is concerned when the cancer
risk estimate associated with food and drinking water exceeds the range
of 1 in 1 million (1 x 10-\6\) . This risk range includes
computed risks as high as 3 x 10-\6\. As a result, cancer
risk to the general U.S. population is below the Agency's level of
concern.
    5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to fenbuconazole residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

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

    Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) for residues of fenbuconazole have
been established by Codex, Canada, and Mexico. The residue definition
for both Codex and Mexico is fenbuconazole, per se. The Canadian
residue definition, however, is the combined residues of fenbuconazole
and its metabolites, RH-9129 and RH-9130, each expressed as parent
(i.e., the same as the U.S. tolerance definition). There are no
established or proposed Canadian, Mexican, or Codex MRLs for
fenbuconazole on pepper.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    By this action, Sec. 180.480(a)(1), is revised to remove reference
to ``time-limited tolerance'' as this section is dedicated to, and only
contains, permanent tolerances. Also, Sec. 180.480(a)(2) is deleted in
its entirety as it relates solely to time-limited tolerances in
paragraph (a)(1) and there are no such tolerances in paragraph (a)(1).
In addition, the time-limited tolerance under Sec. 180.480(b), section
18 emergency exemptions, for blueberry at 1.0 ppm that expired on 12/
31/07 is deleted.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for combined residues of the
fungicide fenbuconazole, alpha-[2-(4-chlorophenyl)- ethyl]-alpha-
phenyl-3-(1H-1,2,4-triazole)- 1-propanenitrile, and its metabolites RH-
9129, cis-5-(4-chlorophenyl)- dihydro-3-phenyl-3-(1H-1,2,4- triazole-1-
ylmethyl)-2-3 H-furanone, and RH-9130, trans-5-(4-
chlorophenyl)dihydro-3-phenyl-3- (1H-1,2,4-triazole-1-ylmethyl)-2-3 H-
furanone, expressed as fenbuconazole in or on pepper at 0.40 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is
not subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information
collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any special
considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments,

on the relationship between the national government and the States or
tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined
that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition, this final rule
does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as
described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA) (Public Law 104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 15, 2008.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. Section 180.480 is amended by removing paragraph (a)(2);
redesignating paragraph (a)(1) as paragraph (a); revising the
introductory text in paragraph (a); adding alphabetically a commodity
to the table in paragraph (a); and revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:

Sec.  180.480  Fenbuconazole; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for combined residues of
the fungicide fenbuconazole, alpha-[2-(4-chlorophenyl)- ethyl]-alpha-
phenyl-3-(1H-1,2,4-triazole)- 1-propanenitrile, and its metabolites RH-
9129, cis-5-(4-chlorophenyl)- dihydro-3-phenyl-3-(1H-1,2,4- triazole-1-
ylmethyl)-2-3 H-furanone, and RH-9130, trans-5-(4-
chlorophenyl)dihydro-3-phenyl-3- (1H-1,2,4-triazole-1-ylmethyl)-2-3 H-
furanone, expressed as fenbuconazole in or on the following
agricultural commodities.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Commodity                                            Parts per million
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    * * * * *
Pepper                                                                                0.40
                                                    * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. Time-limited tolerances are
established for fenbuconazole (alpha-[2-4-chlorophenyl)-ethyl]alpha-
phenyl-3-(1 H -1,2,4-triazole)-1-propanenitrile] and its metabolites,
cis-5-(4-chlorophenyl)-dihydro-3-phenyl-3-(1 H -1,2,4-triazole-1-
ylmethyl)-2-3 H -furanone and trans-5-(4-chlorophenyl)dihydro-3-phenyl-
3-(1 H 1,2,4-triazole-1-ylmethyl-2-3 H -furanone, expressed as
fenbuconazole in or on the following raw agricultural commodities in
connection with use of the pesticide under a section 18 exemption
granted by EPA. The time-limited tolerances will expire on the date
specified in the following table.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Commodity                                      Parts per million                       Expiration/revocation date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cattle, fat                                                                                0.01                                             12/31/08
Cattle, meat                                                                                0.01                                             12/31/08
Goat, fat                                                                                0.01                                             12/31/08
Goat, meat                                                                                0.01                                             12/31/08
Hog, fat                                                                                0.01                                             12/31/08
Hog, meat byproducts                                                                           0.01                                             12/31/08
Hog, meat                                                                                0.01                                             12/31/08
Horse, fat                                                                                0.01                                             12/31/08
Horse, meat                                                                                0.01                                             12/31/08
Sheep, fat                                                                                0.01                                             12/31/08
Sheep, meat                                                                                0.01                                             12/31/08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. E8-19858 Filed 8-26-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 47 (Monday, March 11, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 15338]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05479]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[EPA-R02-RCRA-2013-0144; FRL-9693-3]

New York: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: New York State has applied to EPA for final authorization of
changes to its hazardous waste program under the Solid Waste Disposal
Act, as amended, commonly referred to as the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA proposes to grant final authorization to New
York for these changes, with limited exceptions. EPA has determined
that these changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for final
authorization, and is authorizing the state's changes through a direct
final action.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 10, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R02-
RCRA-2013-0144, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, to the attention of Michael Infurna.
     Mail: Michael Infurna, EPA, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 22nd
Floor, New York, NY 10007.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to:
Michael Infurna, EPA, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 22nd Floor, New York, NY
10007. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's
normal hours of operation. The public is advised to call in advance to
verify the business hours. Special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
    For further information on how to submit comments, please see
today's direct final rule published in the ``Rules and Regulations''
section of this Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Infurna, EPA Region 2, 290
Broadway, 22nd floor, New York, NY 10007; telephone number (212) 637-
4177; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of
this Federal Register notice, EPA is authorizing the changes by a
direct final rule. EPA did not make a proposal prior to the direct
final rule because we believe this action is not controversial and do
not expect comments that oppose it. We have explained the reasons for
this authorization in the preamble to the direct final rule. Unless we
receive adverse written comments which oppose this authorization during
the comment period, the direct final rule will become effective on the
date it establishes, and we will not take further action on this
proposal. If we receive comments that oppose this action, we will
either withdraw the direct final rule or the portion of the direct
final rule that is the subject of the comments. Only the remaining
portion of the rule will take effect. We will then respond to those
public comments opposing this authorization in a later final
authorization notice based on this proposal. This final authorization
notice may or may not include changes based on comments received during
the public notice comment period. You may not have another opportunity
for comment. If you want to comment on this action, you should do so at
this time.

    Dated: December 19, 2012.
Judith A. Enck,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2013-05479 Filed 3-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 116 (Monday, June 19, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27807-27808]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12680]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2290-005.
    Applicants: Avista Corporation.
    Description: Third Amendment to June 30, 2016 Triennial Market
Power Update for the Northwest Region of Avista Corporation.
    Filed Date: 6/7/17.
    Accession Number: 20170607-5177.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/28/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2703-003.
    Applicants: Deerfield Wind Energy, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Deerfield
Wind Energy, LLC.
    Filed Date: 6/7/17.
    Accession Number: 20170607-5175.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/28/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1515-001.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2017-06-07_Amendment to filing to
revise MRES Att O inc. RTO Adder Request to be effective 7/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 6/7/17.
    Accession Number: 20170607-5154.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/28/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1771-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Progress, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: DEP-Winterville RS No. 178
Revised PPA to be effective 7/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 6/7/17.
    Accession Number: 20170607-5123.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/28/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1772-000.
    Applicants: Mid-Atlantic Interstate Transmission, LLC, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: MAIT submits Revised
Operating and Interconnection Agreement SA No. 4578 to be effective 6/
1/2017.
    Filed Date: 6/8/17.
    Accession Number: 20170608-5040.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/29/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1773-000.
    Applicants: American Transmission Systems, Incorporated, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: ATSI submits revised Service
Agreement Nos. 3992 and 3993 to be effective 7/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 6/8/17.
    Accession Number: 20170608-5045.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/29/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 8, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-12680 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 84 (Monday, May 2, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26221-26222]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10096]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12496-002]

Rugraw, LLC; Notice of Application Ready for Environmental
Analysis and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Terms and
Conditions, and Prescriptions

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Major Original License.
    b. Project No.: P-12496-002.
    c. Date filed: April 21, 2014.
    d. Applicant: Rugraw, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Lassen Lodge Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the South Fork Battle Creek near the Town of
Mineral in Tehama County, California. The project would be located on
private lands. No federal lands or Indian reservations are located
within the proposed project boundary.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Charlie Kuffner, 70 Paseo Mirasol, Tiburon,
CA 94920;<PHONE_NUMBER>
    i. FERC Contact: Kenneth Hogan at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or via email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, recommendations, terms and
conditions, and prescriptions: 60 days from the issuance date of this
notice; reply comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of this
notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions
using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000
characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-12496-002.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    k. This application has been accepted and is now ready for
environmental analysis.
    l. The proposed Lassen Lodge Project would consist of: (1) A 6-
foot-high and 94-foot-long diversion dam; (2) an impoundment of
approximately 0.5

acre; (3) a 20-foot by 10-foot enclosed concrete intake structure; (4)
a 7,258-foot-long pipeline and a 5,230-foot-long penstock with a net
head of 791 feet; (5) a 50-foot by 50-foot powerhouse containing one
generating unit with a 5,000-kilowatt capacity; (6) a 50-foot by 50-
foot substation area; (7) a 40-foot by 35-foot switchyard; (8) 100-foot
by 100-foot multipurpose area; and (9) a new 12-mile-long, 60-kilovolt
transmission line. The project is estimated to produce approximately
25,000,000 kilowatt hours annually.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title
``COMMENTS'', ``REPLY COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS,'' ``TERMS AND
CONDITIONS,'' or ``PRESCRIPTIONS;'' (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person submitting the filing; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must
set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the
application directly from the applicant. Each filing must be
accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service
list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with
18 CFR 4.34(b), and 385.2010.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    n. Public notice of the filing of the initial development
application, which has already been given, established the due date for
filing competing applications or notices of intent. Under the
Commission's regulations, any competing development application must be
filed in response to and in compliance with public notice of the
initial development application. No competing applications or notices
of intent may be filed in response to this notice.
    o. Procedural Schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following revised Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the
schedule may be made as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Milestone                              Target
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice that application is ready for     April 2016.
 environmental analysis.
Filing of comments, recommendations,     June 2016.
 terms and conditions, and
 prescriptions.
Filing of reply comments...............  July 2016.
Notice of the availability of the draft  October 2016.
 EIS.
Initiate 10(j) process.................  December 2016.
Notice of the availability of the final  May 2017.
 EIS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    p. A license applicant must file no later than 60 days following
the date of issuance of this notice: (1) A copy of the water quality
certification; (2) a copy of the request for certification, including
proof of the date on which the certifying agency received the request;
or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality certification.

    Dated: April 25, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-10096 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 75 (Thursday, April 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23315-23316]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09139]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.
Extension: Rule 15c3-1; SEC File No. 270-197, OMB Control No. 3235-
0200.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (``PRA''), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in Rule 15c3-1 (17 CFR 240.15c3-
1), under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.).
The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information
to the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for extension and
approval.
    Rule 15c3-1 requires brokers-dealers to have at all times
sufficient liquid assets to meet their current liabilities,
particularly the claims of customers. The rule facilitates the
monitoring of the financial condition of broker-dealers by the
Commission and the various self-regulatory organizations. It is
estimated that broker-dealer respondents registered with the Commission
and subject to the collection of information requirements of Rule 15c3-
1 incur an aggregate annual time burden of 71,818 hours to comply with
this rule and an aggregate annual external cost of $160,000.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Thomas Bayer, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312 or
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

    Dated: April 15, 2013.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-09139 Filed 4-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 212 (Friday, November 3, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75587-75588]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24292]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0103; FRL 10814-01-OAR]

Proposed Information Collection Request Renewal; Comment Request;
Clean School Bus (CSB) Rebate Program; EPA ICR No. 2461.05, OMB Control
No. 2060-0686 (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to
submit an information collection request (ICR) renewal, ``Clean School
Bus (CSB) Rebate Program'' (EPA ICR No. 2461.05, OMB Control No. 260-
0686 (Renewal) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review
and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before
doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the
proposed information collection as described below. An Emergency ICR
No. 2780.01 was approved by OMB in September 2023 that included
additional data necessary to adequately review and administer the CSB
Rebate Program. This ICR renewal consolidates all components of the CSB
Rebate Program collection and renews the existing ICR No. 2461.04,
which is currently approved through August 31, 2025. An Agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 2, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2012-0103, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by
email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy Thomas, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, (6406A), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents that explain in detail
the information that EPA will be collecting are available in the public
docket for this ICR renewal. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. The
ICR renewal package will be submitted to OMB for review and approval.
    Abstract:
    This supporting statement is for the Information Collection Request
(ICR) renewal for the Clean School Bus (CSB) Rebate Program. The CSB
Rebate Program currently collects information under an existing ICR;
namely the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) and Clean School Bus
Rebate Program ICR No. 2060-0686. The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) currently uses ICR No. 2060-0686 to collect information for the
CSB Rebate Program to ensure its successful administration and
management. An Emergency ICR No. 2780.01 was approved by OMB in
September 2023 that included additional data necessary to adequately
review and administer the CSB Rebate Program. This ICR renewal
consolidates all components of the CSB Rebate Program collection.
    School buses collectively travel over four billion miles each year.
They provide safe transportation to and from school for more than 25
million American children every day. While new buses meet the EPA's
tighter emission standards, most school buses on the road emit
pollutants, including nitrogen oxides (NOX) and particulate
matter (PM), in diesel exhaust. These pollutants can contribute to poor
air quality and negatively impact human health, especially for
children, as well as for bus drivers, other school staff, and other
community members. The CSB Rebate Program funds the replacement of
existing school buses with cleaner buses, the operation of which result
in better air quality throughout the communities in which they operate.
    EPA uses approved procedures and forms to collect necessary
information to operate the CSB Rebate Program and has been providing
these rebates since 2022. For each rebate program, EPA utilizes three
online forms for the three phases of the rebate lifecycle: (1)
Application Form, for eligible entities to apply to a new rebate
program, (2) Payment Request Form, for selectees to submit order
documentation and receive funds, and (3) Close Out Form, for selectees
to document completion of the rebate-eligible activity. In Fall 2023,
EPA launched the 2023 CSB Rebate Application for applicants, and the
2022 CSB Rebate Close Out Form for existing 2022 program participants;
EPA is currently preparing to launch the 2023 CSB Rebate Payment
Request Form in early Spring of 2024. EPA will subsequently launch the
2023 CSB Rebate Close Out Form, as well as each rebate form for any
future rebate programs (e.g., 2024 CSB Rebate Program). The data
collected in these forms are needed to operate the rebate program as
authorized by Congress under the CSB statute.
    Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by
this action are those interested in applying for a rebate under EPA's
CSB Program and include but are not limited to the following NAICS
(North American Industry Classification System) codes: 23 Construction;
482 Rail Transportation; 483 Water Transportation; 484 Truck
Transportation; 485 Transit and Ground Passenger Transportation; 4854
School and Employee Bus Transportation; 61111 Elementary and Secondary
Schools; 61131 Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools; 9211
Executive, Legislative, and Other Government Support; and 9221 Justice,
Public Order, and Safety Activities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory for CSB rebate
recipients.
    Estimated number of respondents: 2,400 applicants annually.
    Frequency of response: Once per year.

    Total estimated burden: 19,763 hours for applicants annually and
59,289 hours for applicants over the ICR period. Burden is defined at 5
CFR 1320.03(b)
    Changes in the estimates: There is an increase of 2,476 hours
burden hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the
ICR currently approved by OMB. This change is due to minor decreases to
the respondent count for the Payment Request Form and Close Out Form,
offset by increases to the respondents' time burden for all forms to
more accurately reflect the time required for program participants to
complete the forms given changes in program requirements and changes to
the amount of time given to selectees to edit their forms.

Karl Simon,
Director, Transportation and Climate Division, Office of Air and
Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2023-24292 Filed 11-2-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 241 (Tuesday, December 15, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81257-81258]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27485]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90615; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2020-065]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Withdrawal of Proposed Rule Change To Lower the Enterprise
License Fee for Broker-Dealers Distributing Nasdaq Basic to Internal
Professional Subscribers as Set Forth in the Equity 7 Pricing Schedule,
Section 147, and the Enterprise License Fee for Broker-Dealers
Distributing Nasdaq Last Sale to Professional Subscribers at Equity 7,
Section 139

December 9, 2020.
    On September 30, 2020, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to lower the
enterprise license fee for broker-dealers distributing Nasdaq Basic to
internal professional subscribers as set forth in the Equity 7 Pricing
Schedule, Section 147, and the enterprise license fee for broker-
dealers distributing Nasdaq Last Sale to professional subscribers at
Equity 7, Section 139. The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on October 20, 2020.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90177 (October 14,
2020), 85 FR 66620. Comments on the proposed rule change can be
found at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nasdaq-2020-065/srnasdaq2020065.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 23, 2020, the Exchange withdrew the proposed rule
change (SR-NASDAQ-2020-065).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-27485 Filed 12-14-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P