[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 38 (Monday, February 26, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8262-8264]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03846]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9974-37-OAR]

Alternative Method for Calculating Off-Cycle Credits Under the
Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Program: Applications From
General Motors and Toyota Motor North America

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is requesting comment on applications General Motors (GM),
and Toyota Motor North America (Toyota) for off-cycle carbon dioxide
(CO2) credits under EPA's light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas
emissions standards. ``Off-cycle'' emission reductions can be achieved
by employing technologies that result in real-world benefits, but where
that benefit is not adequately captured on the test procedures used by
manufacturers to demonstrate compliance with emission standards. EPA's
light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas program acknowledges these benefits
by giving automobile manufacturers several options for generating
``off-cycle'' carbon dioxide (CO2) credits. Under the
regulations, a manufacturer may apply for CO2 credits for
off-cycle technologies that result in off-cycle benefits. In these
cases, a manufacturer must provide EPA with a proposed methodology for
determining the real-world off-cycle benefit. These two manufacturers
have submitted applications that describe methodologies for determining
off-cycle credits. The off-cycle technologies vary by manufacturer and
include thermal control technologies such as high efficiency
alternators, an efficient air conditioning compressor, and active
climate control seats. Pursuant to applicable regulations, EPA is
making descriptions of each manufacturer's off-cycle credit calculation
methodologies available for public comment.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 28, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2017-0754, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The
EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not
submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must
be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered
the official comment and should include discussion of all points you
wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Roberts French, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Office of Transportation and Air Quality,
Compliance Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000
Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Fax:
(734) 214-4869. Email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    EPA's light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas (GHG) program provides
three pathways by which a manufacturer may accrue off-cycle carbon
dioxide (CO2) credits for those technologies that achieve
CO2 reductions in the real world but where those reductions
are not adequately captured on the test used to determine compliance
with the CO2 standards, and which are not otherwise
reflected in the standards' stringency. The first pathway is a
predetermined list of credit values for specific off-cycle technologies
that may be used beginning

in model year 2014.\1\ This pathway allows manufacturers to use
conservative credit values established by EPA for a wide range of
technologies, with minimal data submittal or testing requirements, as
long as the technologies meet EPA regulatory definitions. In cases
where the off-cycle technology is not on the menu but additional
laboratory testing can demonstrate emission benefits, a second pathway
allows manufacturers to use a broader array of emission tests (known as
``5-cycle'' testing because the methodology uses five different testing
procedures) to demonstrate and justify off-cycle CO2
credits.\2\ The additional emission tests allow emission benefits to be
demonstrated over some elements of real-world driving not adequately
captured by the GHG compliance tests, including high speeds, hard
accelerations, and cold temperatures. These first two methodologies
were completely defined through notice and comment rulemaking and
therefore no additional process is necessary for manufacturers to use
these methods. The third and last pathway allows manufacturers to seek
EPA approval to use an alternative methodology for determining the off-
cycle CO2 credits.\3\ This option is only available if the
benefit of the technology cannot be adequately demonstrated using the
5-cycle methodology. Manufacturers may also use this option for model
years prior to 2014 to demonstrate off-cycle CO2 reductions
for technologies that are on the predetermined list, or to demonstrate
reductions that exceed those available via use of the predetermined
list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 40 CFR 86.1869-12(b).
    \2\ See 40 CFR 86.1869-12(c).
    \3\ See 40 CFR 86.1869-12(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the regulations, a manufacturer seeking to demonstrate off-
cycle credits with an alternative methodology (i.e., under the third
pathway described above) must describe a methodology that meets the
following criteria:
     Use modeling, on-road testing, on-road data collection, or
other approved analytical or engineering methods;
     Be robust, verifiable, and capable of demonstrating the
real-world emissions benefit with strong statistical significance;
     Result in a demonstration of baseline and controlled
emissions over a wide range of driving conditions and number of
vehicles such that issues of data uncertainty are minimized;
     Result in data on a model type basis unless the
manufacturer demonstrates that another basis is appropriate and
adequate.
    Further, the regulations specify the following requirements
regarding an application for off-cycle CO2 credits:
     A manufacturer requesting off-cycle credits must develop a
methodology for demonstrating and determining the benefit of the off-
cycle technology, and carry out any necessary testing and analysis
required to support that methodology.
     A manufacturer requesting off-cycle credits must conduct
testing and/or prepare engineering analyses that demonstrate the in-use
durability of the technology for the full useful life of the vehicle.
     The application must contain a detailed description of the
off-cycle technology and how it functions to reduce CO2
emissions under conditions not represented on the compliance tests.
     The application must contain a list of the vehicle
model(s) which will be equipped with the technology.
     The application must contain a detailed description of the
test vehicles selected and an engineering analysis that supports the
selection of those vehicles for testing.
     The application must contain all testing and/or simulation
data required under the regulations, plus any other data the
manufacturer has considered in the analysis.
    Finally, the alternative methodology must be approved by EPA prior
to the manufacturer using it to generate credits. As part of the review
process defined by regulation, the alternative methodology submitted to
EPA for consideration must be made available for public comment.\4\ EPA
will consider public comments as part of its final decision to approve
or deny the request for off-cycle credits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 40 CFR 86.1869-12(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Off-Cycle Credit Applications

A. General Motors

1. High-Efficiency Alternator
    General Motors (GM) is requesting GHG credits for alternators with
improved efficiency relative to a baseline alternator. This request is
for the 2010 to 2016 model years. Automotive alternators convert
mechanical energy from a combustion engine into electrical energy that
can be used to power a vehicle's electrical systems. Alternators
inherently place a load on the engine, which results in increased fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions. High efficiency alternators
use new technologies to reduce the overall load on the engine yet
continue to meet the electrical demands of the vehicle systems,
resulting in lower fuel consumption and lower CO2 emissions.
Some comments on EPA's proposed rule for GHG standards for the 2016-
2025 model years suggested that EPA provide a credit for high-
efficiency alternators on the pre-defined list in the regulations.
While EPA agreed that high-efficiency alternators can reduce electrical
load and reduce fuel consumption, and that these impacts are not seen
on the emission test procedures because accessories that use
electricity are turned off, EPA noted the difficulty in defining a one-
size-fits-all credit due to lack of data.\5\ GM proposes a methodology
that would scale credits based on the efficiency of the alternator;
alternators with efficiency (as measured using an accepted industry
standard procedure) above a specified baseline value could get credits
of 0.16 grams/mile per percent improvement in alternator efficiency.
This methodology is similar to that proposed by Ford and published for
comment in June of 2017.\6\ Details of the testing and analysis can be
found in the manufacturer's application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 77FR 62730, October 15, 2012.
    \6\ See 82 FR 27819, June 19, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Active Climate Control Seats
    GM is also applying for off-cycle GHG credits for the use of active
climate control seat technologies. Based on GM's analysis, they are
requesting credits equal to 2.3 grams CO2 per mile for
passenger cars and 2.9 grams CO2 per mile for trucks on all
models that use these seats in both front seating locations. This
request is for a larger amount of credit than could be earned by these
designs using the pre-defined regulatory ``menu'' of default off-cycle
credits for ventilated seats (1.0 and 1.3 grams/mile for cars and
trucks, respectively).
    The technology used by GM uses a combination of ventilation fans
and cooling devices. Active cooling to the seat back is provided by the
installation of thermoelectric devices (TED) and a blower which
provides positive, temperature controlled airflow pushed towards the
occupant. The seat cushion also features a blower operating in a pull
mode, drawing the air surrounding the occupant into the seat cushion.
The foams in both seating surfaces include a textile spacer fabric that
facilitates lateral airflow under occupant load. The seat covers are
made of cloth and backed by an additional layer of textile spacer
fabric to promote airflow to the occupant.
    GM performed a series of simulations on three vehicle platforms,
demonstrating credit values of 1.7 and 2.1 grams/mile for cars and
trucks,

respectively. The analysis also accounted for emissions associated with
the power consumption of the ventilated seat technology. The request is
for these credit levels for 2010-2016 models using active climate
control seat technology in both front seating locations.

B. Toyota Motor North America (Toyota)

    Using the alternative methodology approach discussed above, Toyota
is applying for credits for an air conditioning compressor manufactured
by Denso that results in air conditioning efficiency credits beyond
those provided in the regulations. This request is for the 2013 and
subsequent model years. This compressor, known as the Denso SAS
compressor, improves the internal valve system within the compressor to
reduce the internal refrigerant flow necessary throughout the range of
displacements that the compressor may use during its operating cycle.
The addition of a variable crankcase suction valve allows a larger mass
flow under maximum capacity and compressor start-up conditions (when
high flow is ideal), and then it can reduce to smaller openings with
reduced mass flow in mid- or low-capacity conditions. The refrigerant
exiting the crankcase is thus optimized across the range of operating
conditions, reducing the overall energy consumption of the air
conditioning system. EPA first approved credits for General Motors (GM)
for the use of the Denso SAS compressor in 2015,\7\ and has
subsequently approved such credits for BMW, Ford, and Hyundai.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``EPA Decision Document: Off-cycle Credits for Fiat Chrysler
Automobiles, Ford Motor Company, and General Motors Corporation.''
Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-420-R-15-014, September 2015.
    \8\ EPA Decision Document: Off-cycle Credits for BMW Group, Ford
Motor Company, and Hyundai Motor Company.'' Compliance Division,
Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. EPA-420-R-17-010, December 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The credits calculated for the Denso SAS compressor would be in
addition to the credits of 1.7 grams/mile for variable-displacement A/C
compressors already allowed under EPA regulations.\9\ However, it is
important to note that EPA regulations place a limit on the cumulative
credits that can be claimed for improving the efficiency of A/C
systems. The rationale for this limit is that the additional fuel
consumption of A/C systems can never be reduced to zero, and the limits
established by regulation reflect the maximum possible reduction in
fuel consumption projected by EPA. These limits, or caps, on credits
for A/C efficiency, must also be applied to A/C efficiency credits
granted under the off-cycle credit approval process. In other words,
cumulative A/C efficiency credits for an A/C system--from the A/C
efficiency regulations and those granted via the off-cycle
regulations--must comply with the stated limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 40 CFR 86.1868-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Toyota is requesting an off-cycle GHG credit of 1.1 grams
CO2 per mile for the Denso SAS compressor. Toyota cited the
bench test modeling analysis referenced in the original GM application,
which demonstrated a benefit of 1.1 grams/mile. Like other
manufacturers, Toyota also ran vehicle tests using the AC17 test. Six
tests were conducted on a Toyota Corolla, resulting in a calculated
benefit of 1.4 grams/mile, thus substantiating the bench test results.
Based on these results, Toyota is requesting a credit of 1.1 grams/mile
for all Toyota vehicles equipped with the Denso SAS compressor with
variable crankcase suction valve technology, starting with 2013 model
year vehicles. Details of the testing and analysis can be found in the
manufacturer's application.

III. EPA Decision Process

    EPA has reviewed the applications for completeness and is now
making the applications available for public review and comment as
required by the regulations. The off-cycle credit applications
submitted by GM and Toyota (with confidential business information
redacted) have been placed in the public docket (see ADDRESSES section
above) and on EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/vehicle-and-engine-certification/compliance-information-light-duty-greenhouse-gas-ghg-standards.
    EPA is providing a 30-day comment period on the applications for
off-cycle credits described in this notice, as specified by the
regulations. The manufacturers may submit a written rebuttal of
comments for EPA's consideration, or may revise an application in
response to comments. After reviewing any public comments and any
rebuttal of comments submitted by manufacturers, EPA will make a final
decision regarding the credit requests. EPA will make its decision
available to the public by placing a decision document (or multiple
decision documents) in the docket and on EPA's website at the same
manufacturer-specific pages shown above. While the broad methodologies
used by these manufacturers could potentially be used for other
vehicles and by other manufacturers, the vehicle specific data needed
to demonstrate the off-cycle emissions reductions would likely be
different. In such cases, a new application would be required,
including an opportunity for public comment.

    Dated: February 6, 2018.
Byron Bunker,
Director, Compliance Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality
Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2018-03846 Filed 2-23-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

EPA Registration Division contact: [insert name and telephone number with area code]

TEMPLATE:

[Dow AgroSciences LLC]

[Insert petition number]

	EPA has received a pesticide petition ([insert petition number]) from Dow AgroSciences LLC, 9330 Zionsville Road, Indianapolis, IN 46268 US requesting, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing a tolerance for residues of [XDE-777] in or on the raw agricultural commodity Bananas, Wheat, Rye and Meat, Fat, Kidney, Liver and Meat byproducts from Cattle, Goats and Sheep] at  in or on imported bananas at 0.1 parts per million (ppm) and in or on imported wheat and rye at 0.7 ppm, meat and fat from cattle, sheep and goats at 0.01 ppm and meat byproducts from cattle, sheep and goats at 0.02 ppm.  EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism.
The metabolism of XDE-777 has been studied in representative crops from three different crop groupings that include a cereal crop (wheat, (1)), a fruit crop (tomatoes, (2)) and a leafy vegetable (cabbage (3)).  Results from these three studies showed that XDE-777 is not extensively metabolized in crops following foliar applications.  Parent XDE-777 constitutes a large majority of residues in wheat, cabbage and tomato with low levels of individual metabolites observed.  A similar metabolite profile was observed across the three crop groups, regardless of the application rate, growth stages at application, different PHIs or formulation types.  In all crops, any metabolism that does occur proceeds through loss of the oxymethylisobutyrate group from the pyridine ring or through opening and cleavage of the bislactone ring to ultimately produce low levels of several possible pyridine-label or phenyl-label specific metabolites.  None of the observed residue components appeared to be present as conjugates. Tolerances should be comprised of the parent compound only as no metabolites of toxicological significance were detected in metabolism studies
2. Animal metabolism
The metabolism of XDE-777 has been studied in both poultry and ruminants.  XDE-777 was rapidly and extensively metabolized in both laying hen and lactating goat with a similar metabolite profile.
For poultry, extraction and analyses of the egg and tissue residues showed that once absorbed, XDE-777 was rapidly and extensively metabolized as a detectable residue of the unchanged parent test material was observed only in the skin with fat sample at a level of only about 5% of the TRR.  For all samples, the residue profile was complex and consisted of multiple low level components.  Over 18 different metabolites were isolated and identified.  All metabolites were formed as a result of O-dealkylation of one or both of the oxymethylisobutyrate side chains and opening of the bislactone ring at one of two possible positions.  Further metabolism resulted in complete cleavage of the bislactone ring to give a variety of phenyl-fragment and pyridine-fragment metabolites.  No residues of XDE-777 or any of its metabolites were observed in any of the egg or tissue samples at levels even approaching 0.010 mg/kg.
For ruminants, once absorbed, XDE-777 was rapidly and extensively metabolized.  Residues in tissues were readily extractable.  The metabolic profile was complex, with multiple low-level components that were observed in kidneys, liver, and urine, and a simplified profile was observed in feces.  There was evidence of O-dealkylation of the ester side chains, ring opening, and ring cleavage metabolites.  The ring-cleavage products resulted in differences in the metabolite profiles in the PH- and PY-labels.  Generally, 38-55% of the residues in kidneys and liver were identified.  In the edible matrices, metabolite X12326349 was observed at the highest level, 0.010 mg/kg, in the PY-labeled kidney.
Based on the results of metabolism studies in ruminant / goat and laying hen, the residue definition for both enforcement / monitoring and risk assessment is proposed as the combined residues of XDE-777 and X12326349, expressed as XDE-777 equivalents.

	2. Analytical method. [
Method S12-01537, "XDE 777 and its Metabolite X642188  -  Validation of the Method for the Determination of XDE 777 and its Metabolite X642188 in Crops by LC MS/MS.", was used for the analysis of XDE-777 and its metabolite X642188 in the plant materials. Residues of XDE-777 and its metabolite X642188 were extracted from crop samples by homogenizing and shaking with an acetonitrile/water (90:10) solution.  After extraction, a 250 uL aliquot of the extraction solution is diluted to 5.0 mL with an acetonitrile/water (90:10) solution containing 0.1% formic acid.  After filtering an aliquot of the diluted extract, the samples were analyzed by liquid chromatography using a Phenomenex Luna C18 column coupled with positive-ion electrospray tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS), monitoring two MS/MS transitions characteristic of each analyte. The method has a LOQ of 0.01 mg/kg. Method S12-01537 successfully passed an independent method validation (ILV) study. An adequate analytical method is available for enforcement of the tolerance expression in or on food. ]

	3. Magnitude of residues.
Adequate data are available to support the tolerance of XDE-777 in or on imported bananas at 0.1 ppm based on the intended use of this compound for control of certain fungal diseases in Central and South America.  Additionally, adequate data are available to support tolerances of XDE-777 in or on imported wheat and rye at 0.7 ppm, meat and fat from cattle, sheep and goats at 0.01 ppm and meat byproducts from cattle, sheep and goats at 0.02 ppm based on the intended use of this compound for control of certain fungal diseases in wheat, triticale and rye in the European Union

B. Toxicological Profile

	1. Acute toxicity.
 XDE-777 exhibited low acute oral or dermal toxicity in the Fischer 344 rat with an LD50 >2000 (oral) or >5000 (dermal) mg/kg bw, respectively.  The 4-hour LC50 was >0.53 mg/L for the acute inhalation study, which was the highest attainable respirable concentration.  XDE-777 was essentially non-irritating in the skin and eye irritation studies in the New Zealand White (NZW) rabbit.  In a mouse local lymph node assay (LLNA), XDE-777 was negative for sensitization potential.

	2. Genotoxicty..
For the in vitro genotoxicity studies, the Bacterial Reverse Mutation Test (Ames test), and the Mammalian Cell Forward Mutation Assay (CHO/HGPRT) demonstrated that XDE-777 does not cause gene mutations in these cell cultures, in the absence or presence of a metabolic activation system (rat liver S9).  The Mammalian Chromosome Aberration Assay (rat lymphocytes) was positive for clastogenicity after 4-hour treatments in the absence or presence of a metabolic activation system (rat liver S9).  An in vivo mouse micronucleus assay demonstrated that XDE-777 does not induce micronuclei in somatic cells at a limit dose of 2000 mg/kg bw/day.  These data indicate that the in vitro clastogenicity effects were not reproducible following in vivo exposures. In an in vivo mouse UDS assay, XDE-777 did not induce any unscheduled DNA synthesis in the liver at the limit dose of 2000 mg/kg bw.

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity.
There were no effects on reproduction or development following exposure to XDE-777 in a 2-generation rat reproduction study (up to the limit dose) and rat (up to the limit dose)  and rabbit (up to 495 mg/kg bw/day) developmental toxicity studies.

	4. Subchronic toxicity.
The toxicity of XDE-777 has been evaluated extensively in rats, mice and dogs at doses up to the limit dose).  The target organ in the mouse is the liver (reversible effects of increased weights and slight hepatocellular hypertrophy, fatty change and necrosis), whereas there were no adverse findings in short-term rat or dog studies. There were no effects indicative of immunotoxicity or neurotoxicity following exposure to XDE-777.

	5. Chronic toxicity.
 There were no treatment-related neoplastic changes with dietary administration of XDE-777 for up to 18 months in CD-1 mice of either sex at the dose levels tested.  Similarly, dietary administration of XDE-777 to male and female F344/DuCrl rats for 2 years did not result in a treatment-related increase in neoplasms.

	6. Animal metabolism.
The absorption, distribution, metabolism and elimination of XDE-777 was assessed in rats, mice, rabbits and dogs.  Systemically available XDE-777 is highly metabolized, with very little parent found in the blood or in the urine of any species.  Parent XDE-777 is the major radiolabeled component present in the feces.  The majority of the urinary and fecal metabolites show similar distribution ratios across dose groups and with repeated exposure.  At high oral doses (300 mg [14]C-XDE-777/kg bw) the percent of the administered dose represented by the identified urinary and fecal metabolites was considerably less than at low oral doses (10 mg [14]C-XDE-777/kg bw), consistent with lower absorption seen at higher dose levels.  All of the proposed and identified urinary and fecal metabolites contain the intact phenyl and pyridine rings.  The four identified metabolites arise via hydrolysis of various ester moieties, as well as O-dealkylation of the hydroxymethoxy side chain of the pyridine ring.

	7. Metabolite toxicology.
Two studies, an Ames test and an acute oral toxicity study have been conducted on X642188, a plant metabolite which show there is no concern for mutagenicity or acute toxicity.

	8. Endocrine disruption.
No specific studies have been conducted with XDE-777. There were no endocrine-mediated effects demonstrated in any species in the mammalian toxicological studies with XDE-777, including: the oral 28- and 90-day, multi-generational reproductive, developmental toxicity, and oncogenicity studies. Based on the lack of any effects on the endocrine system, XDE-777 is not considered an endocrine disrupter.

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure.
For the US populations, the route of exposure to XDE-777 will only be through imported food. Residential use and drinking water exposure routes are not relevant.  XDE-777 does not have a proposed acute reference dose and, therefore, only chronic dietary exposures are germane.

	i. Food.
The Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID(TM), Version 4.02) was used which incorporates NHANES 2-day food consumption data for 2005-2010 using food translations based on EPA/USDA FCID recipe set as of August 2014.  A conservative analysis (Tier 1) was initially conducted with the assumption that 100% of requested commodities would be treated with the XDE-777 and the residues would be present at the proposed tolerance levels.
Exposure through drinking water was not included because it is not applicable to imported foods.
The results of the dietary risk assessment are unlikely to underestimate risk.  This is in part due to the fact that, processing studies have shown that there was no concentration of residues of XDE-777 and X642188 metabolite in wheat processed fractions.  Edible processed fractions are wheat flour, bran and germ.  The proposed tolerance of 0.7 ppm for wheat, including processed commodities, was conservatively maintained in this assessment.
An acute reference dose (aRfD) is not required for XDE-777 as it is considered unlikely to present an acute hazard. There were no significant treatment-related findings in the acute, short-term, 2-generation reproduction or developmental toxicity studies to indicate a concern in acute dietary risk assessment.

	ii. Drinking water.
For the US populations, the route of exposure to XDE-777 will only be through imported food. Residential use and drinking water exposure routes are not relevant.

	2. Non-dietary exposure.
In general, commercial and homeowner uses of products in residential settings can lead to non-dietary exposures which are often aggregated with dietary exposure. However, given no additional routes of exposure are applicable to XDE-777 other than via the food route, no additional aggregation is required.

D. Cumulative Effects

	Currently, no methodologies are available to resolve the complex scientific issues concerning common mechanism of toxicity and cumulative exposure and risk. The U.S. EPA has begun a process to study this issue further through the examination of particular classes of pesticides. As such, Dow AgroSciences believes it is appropriate to consider only the potential risks of XDE-777 in this exposure assessment.

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population.
Based on the chronic dietary assessment, the dietary risk assessment supports a finding that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population from exposure to XDE-777 when exposure is due to imported cereals, bananas, meat and meat by-products.  For the chronic dietary assessment, all levels are 1% or less of the proposed reference dose and, therefore, are anticipated to be below the level of concern for the Agency.

	2. Infants and children.
Based on the chronic dietary assessment, the dietary risk assessment supports a finding that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population from exposure to XDE-777 when exposure is due to imported cereals, bananas, meat and meat by-products.  For the chronic dietary assessment, all levels are 1% or less of the proposed reference dose and, therefore, are anticipated to be below the level of concern for the Agency.

F. International Tolerances

	There are no Codex maximum residue levels established for residues of XDE-777 for small grains or bananas nor are there international MRLs established for small grains or bananas.


[Federal Register: June 29, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 125)]
[Notices]
[Page 35702]
[DOCID:fr29jn07-47]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-429-001]

Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP; Notice of Compliance Filing

June 22, 2007.
    Take notice that on June 20, 2007, Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP
(Cove Point) submitted a compliance filing pursuant to the Commission's
order issued May 31, 2007 in Docket No. RP07-429-000.
    Cove Point states that copies of the filing were served on parties
on the official service list in the above-captioned proceeding.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest
must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-12612 Filed 6-28-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P