computed using the proposed default approaches would be an annual
geometric mean not to be exceeded more than once over a three-year
period. These components of the proposed approaches align with the
duration and frequency of both the numeric lake criteria, codified at
40 CFR 131.43(c)(1), and the streams criteria which are proposed to be
codified at 40 CFR 131.43(c)(2).
    As in the final rule, protection of downstream lakes using the
options described in this proposed rule is accomplished through
establishment of a DPV. The applicable criteria for streams that flow
into downstream lakes include both the instream criteria for TN and TP
and the DPV, which is a concentration or loading value at the point of
entry of a stream into a downstream lake that ensures the attainment
and maintenance of the numeric lake criteria. EPA selected the point of
entry into the lake as the location to measure water quality because
the lake responds to the input from the pour point, and all
contributions from the stream network above this point in a watershed
affect the water quality at the pour point. When a DPV is exceeded at
the pour point, the waters that collectively comprise the network of
streams in the watershed above that pour point are considered to not
attain the DPV for purposes of CWA section 303(d). The State may
identify these impaired waters as a group rather than individually.
    Contributions of TN and/or TP from sources in stream tributaries
upstream of the pour point are accountable to the DPV because the water
quality in the stream tributaries must result in attainment of the DPV
at the pour point into the lake. The spatial allocation of load within
the watershed is an important accounting step to ensure that the DPV is
achieved at the point of entry into the lake. How the watershed load is
allocated may differ based on watershed characteristics and existing
sources (e.g., areas that are more susceptible to physical loss of
nitrogen; location of towns, farms, and dischargers), so long as the
DPV is met at the point of entry into the downstream lake. Where
additional information is available, watershed modeling could be used
to develop allocations that reflect hydrologic variability and other
water quality considerations. For protection of the downstream lake,
what is important is an accounting for nutrient pollution loadings on a
watershed scale that results in meeting the DPV at the point of entry
into the downstream lake.
    As in the December 6, 2010 final rule, this proposal provides that
additional DPVs may be established in upstream locations to represent
sub-allocations of the total allowable loading or concentration. Such
sub-allocations may be useful where there are differences in
hydrological conditions and/or sources of TN and/or TP in different
parts of the watershed. In addition to the explanations provided
earlier, EPA refers the reader to its technical support document
associated with the December 6, 2010 final rule for specific
information supporting how harmful, adverse effects are more likely to
occur in lakes at TN and TP concentrations above the established
numeric lake criteria (Chapter 2, Derivation of EPA's Numeric Nutrient
Criteria for Lakes).
    EPA requests comment on the three proposed default approaches,
including whether implementation of DPVs calculated using the default
approaches would ensure the attainment and maintenance of the
downstream numeric lake criteria in Florida's unimpaired lakes. The
proposed default DPV approaches and DPVs are aimed at the protection of
unimpaired lakes. However, EPA recognizes that the second and third
options may also be appropriate for the protection of impaired lakes
and offer additional flexibility to the default DPV approach for
impaired lakes, which is codified at 40 CFR 131.43(c)(2)(ii)(D). EPA
requests comment on applying the second and third default DPV options
to impaired lakes as well as unimpaired lakes. In addition, EPA
requests comments on whether the Agency should promulgate default DPV
values in addition to default DPV approaches to be used in situations
when modeling is unavailable.

F. Applicability of Criteria When Final

    EPA proposes that the numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's
streams not covered by Florida's Rule and the DPVs for unimpaired lakes
described in this rule be effective for CWA purposes 60 days after EPA
publishes final criteria, and apply in addition to any other criteria
for Class I or Class III waters already adopted by the State and
submitted to EPA (and for those adopted after May 30, 2000, approved by
EPA). EPA requests comment on this proposed effective date.
    In addition to this proposal, EPA has proposed to stay the December
6, 2010 final rule \80\ (75 FR 75762) to November 15, 2013 (See http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/florida_inland.cfm). This date should
closely coincide with the effective date of this proposed rule, which
is approximately 60 days following the publication of the final rule
(i.e., shortly after August 31, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 233, 75762, December 6,
2010. Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and
Flowing Waters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For water bodies that Florida has designated as Class I and III,
any final EPA numeric nutrient criteria will be applicable CWA water
quality criteria for purposes of implementing CWA programs including
permitting under the NPDES program, as well as monitoring and
assessment, and establishment of TMDLs. The proposed criteria in this
rule, when finalized, would be subject to Florida's general rules of
applicability to the same extent as are other State-adopted and/or
federally-promulgated criteria for Florida waters. Furthermore, states
have discretion to adopt general policies that affect the application
and implementation of WQS (40 CFR 131.13). There are many applications
of criteria in Florida's water quality programs. Therefore, EPA
believes that it is not necessary for purposes of this proposed rule to
enumerate each of them, nor is it necessary to restate any otherwise
generally applicable requirements.
    It is important to note that no existing TMDL for waters in Florida
will be rescinded or invalidated as a result of finalizing this
proposed rule, nor will this proposed rule when finalized have the
effect of withdrawing any prior EPA approval of a TMDL in Florida.
Neither the CWA nor EPA regulations require TMDLs to be completed or
revised within any specific time period after a change in water quality
standards occurs. TMDLs are typically reviewed as part of states'
ongoing water quality assessment programs. Florida may review TMDLs at
its discretion based on the State's priorities, resources, and most
recent assessments. NPDES permits are subject to five-year permit
cycles, and in certain circumstances are administratively continued
beyond five years. In practice, States often prioritize their
administrative workload in permits. This prioritization could be
coordinated with TMDL review.

Because current nutrient TMDLs were established to protect Florida's
waters from the effects of nitrogen and phosphorus pollution, the same
goal as EPA's numeric nutrient criteria, the Agency believes that,
absent specific new information to the contrary, it is reasonable to
presume that basing NPDES permit limits on those TMDLs will result in
effluent limitations as stringent as necessary to meet the federal
numeric nutrient criteria.

IV. Under what conditions will Federal standards be either not
finalized or withdrawn?

    Under the CWA, Congress gave states primary responsibility for
developing and adopting WQS for their navigable waters. (See CWA
section 303(a)-(c)). EPA is proposing numeric nutrient criteria for
flowing waters outside the South Florida Region not covered by the
State of Florida's Rule and DPVs for unimpaired lakes to meet the
Agency's obligations under the Consent Decree. EPA notes if Florida's
Rule will not take effect due to subsection 62-302.531(9), F.A.C., EPA
would expect to finalize the criteria in this proposed rulemaking for
all flowing waters (i.e., streams) located outside of the South Florida
Region that are designated as either Class I or Class III. EPA solicits
comment on this potential outcome. EPA recognizes that Florida has
exercised the option to adopt and submit to EPA numeric nutrient
criteria for some of the State's Class I and many of the State's Class
III waters and EPA has approved those criteria as consistent with CWA
section 303(c) and implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 131.
Consistent with CWA section 303(c)(4), EPA does not intend to proceed
with the final rulemaking for those waters for which EPA has approved
Florida's criteria, provided that the newly approved State water
quality standards will be allowed to go into effect, FDEP will be
allowed to implement them consistent with their Implementation
Document, and, with respect to numeric DPVs, that the district court
modifies the Consent Decree consistent with EPA's amended Determination
that numeric DPVs are not necessary to meet CWA requirements in
Florida.
    EPA is not obligated under the Consent Decree to promulgate
regulations setting forth numeric nutrient criteria in all Class I and
III lakes and flowing waters if the State of Florida submits and EPA
approves new or revised WQS for these waterbodies. EPA approved
revisions on November 30, 2012 and is in discussions with Florida
regarding waters not covered by the State's numeric nutrient criteria.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 131.21(c), if EPA does finalize this proposed
rule, the EPA-promulgated WQS would be applicable WQS for purposes of
the CWA until EPA withdraws the federally-promulgated standard.
Withdrawing the Federal standards for the State of Florida would
require rulemaking by EPA pursuant to the requirements of the
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.551 et seq.). EPA would undertake
such a rulemaking to withdraw the Federal criteria when EPA is assured
that numeric nutrient criteria that fully meet the requirements of
section 303(c) of the CWA and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR
part 131 are in effect.
    Among the newly-approved state water quality standards are numeric
criteria for nutrients that apply to a set of streams, as that term is
specifically defined in the newly-approved state water quality
standards. Under the Consent Decree, EPA is relieved of its obligation
to propose numeric criteria for nutrients after FDEP submits and EPA
approves new or revised water quality standards. Thus, under normal
circumstances, EPA would be clearly relieved of its obligation to
propose numeric criteria for nutrients Florida covered in its newly-
approved state water quality standards. EPA notes that a provision
included in Florida's Rule, specifically subsection 62-302.531(9),
F.A.C., casts some doubt as to whether the newly approved state water
quality standards will go into effect if EPA proposes and promulgates
numeric nutrient criteria for streams not covered by the newly approved
State water quality standards. Therefore, it is unclear whether an
EPA's proposal to ``gap fill'', or establish numeric criteria for
nutrients for Florida streams that FDEP does not cover in its Rule,
would trigger 62-302.531(9), F.A.C. and result in Florida's streams
criteria not taking effect.
    In addition, due to a recent administrative challenge filed in the
State of Florida Department of Administrative Hearings, there is
uncertainty as to whether FDEP will be able to implement its newly
approved state water quality standards consistent with FDEP's
``Implementation of Florida's Numeric Nutrient Standards''
(Implementation Document). Thus, EPA approved portions of Florida's new
or revised water quality standards subject to the State being able to
implement them as provided in its Implementation Document. If, as a
result of legal challenge, FDEP is unable to implement its Rule as
provided in its Implementation Document, EPA would intend to revisit
its November 30, 2012 approval of Florida's new or revised water
quality standards. EPA has therefore reserved its authority to withdraw
or modify that approval.
    In light of the above, EPA seeks comment on finalizing a rule that
applies EPA's streams criteria to streams meeting EPA's definition of
``stream'' that are not covered under Florida's numeric interpretation
of narrative nutrient criteria at 62-302.531(2)(c), F.A.C. This would
serve to fill gaps in coverage if Florida's streams criteria are in
effect, or apply to all streams if Florida's streams criteria are not
in effect for any reason, including those mentioned above. EPA's
understanding is that it is obligated to propose numeric criteria in
streams not covered by 62-302.531(2)(c) F.A.C. under the consent
decree. EPA acknowledges that it is possible that there may be
approaches that are similarly protective of designated uses in a subset
of the uncovered Class III waters and seeks comment on alternatives.
    Finally, as described in EPA's November 30, 2012 approval of
Florida's new or revised water quality standards, while EPA believes
that the provisions addressing downstream protection will provide for
quantitative approaches to ensure the attainment and maintenance of
downstream waters consistent with 40 CFR 131.10(b), the provisions
themselves, however, do not consist of numeric values. Because EPA is
currently subject to a Consent Decree deadline to sign a rule proposing
numeric downstream protection values (DPVs) for Florida by November 30,
2012, EPA is proposing numeric DPVs to comply with the Consent Decree.
However, EPA has amended its January 2009 determination to specify that
numeric criteria for downstream protection are not necessary and that
quantitative approaches designed to ensure the attainment and
maintenance of downstream water quality standards, such as those
established by Florida, are sufficient to meet CWA requirements. As
such, EPA will ask the court to modify the Consent Decree consistent
with the Agency's amended determination, i.e., to not require EPA to
promulgate numeric DPVs for Florida. Accordingly, EPA approved the
State's downstream protection provisions subject to the district court
modifying the Consent Decree to not require EPA to promulgate numeric
DPVs for Florida. If the district court agrees to so modify the Consent
Decree, EPA will not promulgate numeric DPVs for Florida. However, if
the district court declines to so modify the Consent Decree, EPA would
intend to promulgate numeric DPVs for Florida

and would also expect to revisit its November 30, 2012 approval of the
State Rule's downstream protection provisions to modify or withdraw its
approval. Therefore, EPA has also reserved its authority to do so in
its approval document.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
this action is a ``significant regulatory action.'' Accordingly, EPA
submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011) and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been
documented in the docket for this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). It does not include any
information collection, reporting, or record-keeping requirements.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this action on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    Under the CWA WQS program, states must adopt WQS for their waters
and must submit those WQS to EPA for approval; if the Agency
disapproves a state standard and the state does not adopt appropriate
revisions to address EPA's disapproval, EPA must promulgate standards
consistent with the statutory requirements. EPA also has the authority
to promulgate WQS in any case where the Administrator determines that a
new or revised standard is necessary to meet the requirements of the
Act. These state standards (or EPA-promulgated standards) are
implemented through various water quality control programs including
the NPDES program, which limits discharges to navigable waters except
in compliance with an NPDES permit. The CWA requires that all NPDES
permits include any limits on discharges that are necessary to meet
applicable WQS.
    Thus, under the CWA, EPA's promulgation of WQS establishes
standards that the State implements through the NPDES permit process.
The State has discretion in developing discharge limits, as needed to
meet the standards. This proposed rule does not itself establish any
requirements that are applicable to small entities. As a result of this
action, the State of Florida will need to ensure that permits it issues
include any limitations on discharges necessary to comply with the
standards established in the proposed rule. In doing so, the State will
have a number of choices associated with permit writing. While
Florida's implementation of the rule may ultimately result in new or
revised permit conditions for some dischargers, including small
entities, EPA's action, by itself, does not impose any of these
requirements on small entities; that is, these requirements are not
self-implementing. Thus, I certify that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This proposed rule contains no Federal mandates under the
regulatory provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
for state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. The
State may use these resulting water quality criteria in implementing
its water quality control programs. This proposed rule does not
regulate or affect any entity and, therefore, is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.
    EPA determined that this proposed rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. Moreover, WQS, including those promulgated here, apply
broadly to dischargers and are not uniquely applicable to small
governments. Thus, this proposed rule is not subject to the
requirements of section 203 of UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. EPA's authority and responsibility
to promulgate Federal WQS when state standards do not meet the
requirements of the CWA is well established and has been used on
various occasions in the past. The proposed rule will not substantially
affect the relationship between EPA and the states and territories, or
the distribution of power or responsibilities between EPA and the
various levels of government. The proposed rule will not alter
Florida's considerable discretion in implementing these WQS. Further,
this proposed rule will not preclude Florida from adopting WQS that EPA
concludes meet the requirements of the CWA, after promulgation of the
final rule, which would eliminate the need for these Federal standards
and lead EPA to withdraw them. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not
apply to this proposed rule.
    Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this
action, EPA had extensive communication with the State of Florida to
discuss EPA's concerns with the State's water quality criteria and the
Federal rulemaking process. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and
consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and
state and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this
proposed rule from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments)

    Subject to the Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000) EPA may not issue a regulation that has tribal implications, that
imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required
by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary
to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by tribal governments, or
EPA consults with tribal officials early in the process of developing
the proposed regulation and develops a tribal summary impact statement.
    During its previous rulemaking and development of water quality
standards for Florida's lakes and flowing waters,

EPA concluded that the rule \81\ may have tribal implications.
Ultimately, however, EPA felt that the rule would neither impose
substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments, nor preempt
Tribal law. Therefore, EPA met with the Seminole Tribe on January 19,
2010 and requested an opportunity to meet with the Miccosukee Tribe to
discuss EPA's rule, although a meeting was never requested by the
Tribe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ 75 FR 75762, December 6, 2010. Water Quality Standards for
the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because this current proposal re-proposes the same numeric nutrient
criteria with further explanation on how the criteria will ensure the
protection of the Florida's designated uses by avoiding harmful changes
in nutrient levels, and provides for the same approaches for
determining DPVs as in the final rule with some additional flexibility,
EPA determined that tribal consultation will not be needed. However,
EPA will specifically solicit additional comment on this proposed rule
from tribal officials during the public comment period.

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

    This action is not subject to EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) because it is not economically significant as defined in EO
12866, and because the Agency's promulgation of this rule will result
in the reduction of environmental health and safety risks that could
present a disproportionate risk to children.

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

    This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act of 1995

    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) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.

J. Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations)

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it will afford a
greater level of protection to both human health and the environment if
these numeric nutrient criteria are promulgated for Class I and Class
III waters in the State of Florida.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 131

    Environmental protection, Florida, Nitrogen and phosphorus
pollution, Nutrients, Water quality standards.

    Dated: November 30, 2012.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 131 is
proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 131--WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

    1. The authority citation for part 131 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

Subpart D--[Amended]

    2. Section 131.43 is amended by:
    a. Revising (c)(2)(i).
    b. Revising paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(C).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  131.43  Florida.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) Criteria for streams.
    (i) The applicable instream protection value (IPV) criteria for
total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) for streams within each
respective nutrient watershed region are shown on Table 2.

                                 Table 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Instream protection value criteria
    Nutrient watershed region    ---------------------------------------
                                     TN (mg/L) \*\       TP (mg/L) \*\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Panhandle West \a\..............                0.67                0.06
Panhandle East \b\..............                1.03                0.18
North Central \c\...............                1.87                0.30
West Central \d\................                1.65                0.49
Peninsula \e\...................                1.54                0.12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watersheds pertaining to each Nutrient Watershed Region (NWR) were based
  principally on the NOAA coastal, estuarine, and fluvial drainage areas
  with modifications to the NOAA drainage areas in the West Central and
  Peninsula Regions that account for unique watershed geologies. For
  more detailed information on regionalization and which WBIDs pertain
  to each NWR, see the Technical Support Document.
\a\ Panhandle West region includes: Perdido Bay Watershed, Pensacola Bay
  Watershed, Choctawhatchee Bay Watershed, St. Andrew Bay Watershed,
  Apalachicola Bay Watershed.
\b\ Panhandle East region includes: Apalachee Bay Watershed, and
  Econfina/Steinhatchee Coastal Drainage Area.
\c\ North Central region includes the Suwannee River Watershed.

\d\ West Central region includes: Peace, Myakka, Hillsborough, Alafia,
  Manatee, Little Manatee River Watersheds, and small, direct Tampa Bay
  tributary watersheds south of the Hillsborough River Watershed.
\e\ Peninsula region includes: Waccasassa Coastal Drainage Area,
  Withlacoochee Coastal Drainage Area, Crystal/Pithlachascotee Coastal
  Drainage Area, small, direct Tampa Bay tributary watersheds west of
  the Hillsborough River Watershed, Sarasota Bay Watershed, small,
  direct Charlotte Harbor tributary watersheds south of the Peace River
  Watershed, Caloosahatchee River Watershed, Estero Bay Watershed,
  Kissimmee River/Lake Okeechobee Drainage Area, Loxahatchee/St. Lucie
  Watershed, Indian River Watershed, Daytona/St. Augustine Coastal
  Drainage Area, St. John's River Watershed, Nassau Coastal Drainage
  Area, and St. Mary's River Watershed.
* For a given water body, the annual geometric mean of TN or TP
  concentrations shall not exceed the applicable criterion concentration
  more than once in a three-year period.

    (ii) Criteria for protection of downstream lakes.
    (A) * * *
    (B) * * *
    (C) When the State or EPA has not derived a DPV for a stream
pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(B) of this section, and where the
downstream lake attains the applicable chlorophyll-a criterion and the
applicable TP and/or TN criteria, then the DPV for TN and/or TP will be
determined using any of the following options: For the first option,
the DPV for TN and/or TP applicable at the pour point to the lake is
the applicable TN and/or TP criteria for the downstream lake codified
in 40 CFR 131.43(c)(1), similar to paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(D) of this
section. For the second option, the DPV for TN and/or TP applicable at
the pour point of the receiving lake is found in Table 3.

                                 Table 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Default option 2
                                                     -------------------
                     Lake class                        TN DPV    TP DPV
                                                       (mg/L)    (mg/L)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colored Lakes.......................................      1.59      0.11
Clear, High Alkaline Lakes..........................      1.40      0.09
Clear, Low Alkaline Lakes...........................      0.87      0.06
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the third option, the DPV for TN and/or TP applicable at the
pour point to the lake is computed using TN and TP data from the stream
discharging into the lake coincident in time with the period of record
when the lake was attaining all applicable nutrient criteria pursuant
to 40 CFR 131.43(c)(1). These default approaches supplement EPA's
promulgated DPVs for the protection of downstream lakes in paragraphs
(c)(2)(ii)(B) and (D) of this section.

[FR Doc. 2012-30114 Filed 12-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 16, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 221)]
[Notices]
[Page 66808-66810]
[DOCID:fr16no06-113]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54729; File No. SR-CBOE-2006-83]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Relating to Complex Orders

November 8, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 20, 2006, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
The CBOE has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\
which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the
Commission.\5\ The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \5\ The CBOE has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay, as specified in Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii). 17 CFR
240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The CBOE proposes to amend its rules regarding the execution of
complex orders to clarify that the legs of stock-option and security
future-option orders may be executed in penny increments. The CBOE also
proposes various non-substantive changes designed to simplify the text
of several rules. The text of the proposed rule change is available on
the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com), at the Exchange's Office

of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    CBOE Rule 6.42(3), ``Minimum Increments for Bids and Offers,''
currently provides that complex orders may generally be expressed on a
net price basis in any increment, regardless of the minimum increment
otherwise appropriate to the individual legs of the order.\6\ Thus, for
example, a complex order could be entered at a net debit or credit
price of $1.03 even though the minimum increment for the individual
series is generally $0.05 or $0.10.\7\ After a complex order has been
executed at the total net debit or credit price, the contract
quantities and prices for each individual component leg of the trade
are reported as executions. In this regard, CBOE Rule 6.42(3) currently
provides that the legs of a complex order may be executed in one-cent
increments, regardless of the minimum increments otherwise appropriate
to the individual legs of the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A minimum trading increment is defined in CBOE Rule 6.42 as
$0.05 if the options contract is trading at less than $3.00 and
$0.10 if the options contract is trading at or above $3.00.
    \7\ As an exception to this provision, CBOE Rule 6.42(3)
provides that complex orders in options on the S&P 500 Index
(``SPX'') and the S&P 100 Index (``OEX'') that are not box spreads
are to be expressed in decimal increments no smaller than $0.05. A
``box spread'' (also referred to as a ``box/roll spread'') means
``an aggregation of positions in a long call option and short put
option with the same exercise price (`buy side') coupled with a long
put option and short call option with the same exercise price (`sell
side') all of which have the same aggregate current underlying
value, and are structured as either: (A) a `long box spread' in
which the sell side exercise price exceeds the buy side exercise
price or (B) a `short box spread' in which the buy side exercise
price exceeds the sell side exercise price.'' See CBOE Rule 6.42,
Interpretation and Policy .05, and CBOE Rule 6.53C(a)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the types of complex orders that may be expressed
in net price increments and reported in one-cent increments as
described above, the rule text currently refers to spreads, straddles,
and combinations as defined in CBOE Rule 6.53, ``Certain Types of
Orders Defined,'' and any other type of complex order defined in CBOE
Rule 6.53C, ``Complex Orders on the Hybrid System.'' The purpose of the
proposed rule change is to clarify that the options leg of a stock-
option or security future-option order, as defined in CBOE Rules

1.1(ii)(a) and 1.1(zz)(a),\8\ respectively (collectively ``Type A''
orders), also may be executed in one-cent increments.\9\ While there
are already references to both Type A and Type B stock-option and
security future-option orders in the Exchange's priority rules
applicable to complex orders,\10\ the Exchange believes that making the
proposed clarification in the text of CBOE Rule 6.42(3) should help to
avoid any confusion as to the applicable increments for reporting the
execution of any options leg of Type A stock-option and security
future-option orders. The Exchange believes that this clarification is
consistent with Rule 722 of the International Securities Exchange
(``ISE''), which permits complex orders, as defined in ISE Rule 722, to
be executed in penny increments.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ A ``stock-option order'' is defined as ``an order to buy or
sell a stated number of units of an underlying or a related security
coupled with either (a) The purchase or sale of option contract(s)
on the opposite side of the market representing either the same
number of units of the underlying or related security or the number
of units of the underlying security necessary to create a delta
neutral position or (b) the purchase or sale of an equal number of
put and call option contracts, each having the same exercise price,
expiration date and each representing the same number of units of
stock as, and on the opposite side of the market from, the
underlying or related security portion of the order.'' See CBOE Rule
1.1(ii). A ``security future-option order'' is defined as ``an order
to buy or sell a stated number of units of a security future or a
related security convertible into a security future (`convertible
security future') coupled with either (a) The purchase or sale of
option contract(s) on the opposite side of the market representing
either the same number of the underlying for the security future or
convertible security future or the number of units of the underlying
for the security future or convertible security future necessary to
create a delta neutral position or (b) the purchase or sale of an
equal number of put and call option contracts, each having the same
exercise price, expiration date and each representing the same
number of the underlying for the security future or convertible
security future, as and on the opposite side of the market from, the
underlying for the security future or convertible security future
portion of the order.'' See CBOE Rule 1.1(zz).
    \9\ CBOE Rule 6.42(3) already contains a cross-reference to
conversions and reversals (collectively ``Type B'' orders). A
conversion (reversal) order is an order involving the purchase
(sale) of a put option and the sale (purchase) of a call option in
equivalent units with the same strike price and expiration in the
same underlying security, and the purchase (sale) of the related
instrument. See CBOE Rule 6.53C(a)(9). This definition is also
referenced in CBOE Rules 1.1(ii)(b) and 1.1(zz)(b).
    \10\ CBOE Rule 6.45(e) pertains to the priority of complex
orders executed in non-Hybrid Trading System (``Hybrid'') options
classes. CBOE Rule 6.45A(b)(iii) pertains to the priority of complex
orders in Hybrid equity options classes. CBOE Rule 6.45B(b)(iii)
pertains to the priority of complex orders in Hybrid index and
exchange-traded fund option classes.
    \11\ See ISE Rule 722(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also notes that under CBOE rules, a stock-option order
or security future-option order may be executed at a total credit or
debit price without giving priority to bids (offers) established in the
trading crowd but not over bids (offers) in the public customer limit
order book. While CBOE is proposing to clarify that the options leg of
a Type A stock-option or security future-option order may be executed
in penny increments, it is not proposing to change the existing
requirement that to have priority over public customer limit orders,
the options leg of the order must trade at a price that is better than
the corresponding bid (offer) by at least one minimum trading
increment. Thus, public customer limit orders will maintain their
existing priority.
    Finally, the Exchange is proposing various non-substantive changes
in an effort to simplify the existing text of several rules. First,
rather than list out the various types of complex orders, the Exchange
proposes to add a definition of a ``complex order'' in Interpretation
and Policy .01 to CBOE Rule 6.42.\12\ The Exchange also proposes to add
corresponding cross-references to this definition in other CBOE
rules.\13\ Second, the Exchange proposes to add a reference to CBOE
Rule 6.42(3) to clarify that, except as otherwise provided in CBOE Rule
6.53C, a complex order may be expressed in any increment.\14\ Third,
the Exchange proposes to replace rule text in CBOE Rule 6.42(3),
regarding the priority applicable to complex orders that are not net
priced in a multiple of the minimum increment, with a cross-reference
to the applicable priority requirements described in other CBOE rules,
and to add a reference to certain of the Exchange's applicable complex
order priority rules providing that at least one leg of a complex order
must better the corresponding bid (offer) in the public customer limit
order book by at least one minimum trading increment as defined in CBOE
Rule 6.42 (i.e., $0.05 or $0.10, as applicable). The Exchange believes
that this proposed change to the rule text is substantively the same as
one recently made by the ISE.\15\ Finally, CBOE Rule 6.42 is being
revised to clarify that the terms ``box/roll spread'' and ``box
spread,'' both of which are used in the CBOE's rules, have the same
meaning.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For purposes of the rule, ``complex order'' shall mean a
spread, straddle, combination, or ratio order as defined in CBOE
Rule 6.53, a stock-option order as defined in CBOE Rule 1.1(ii), a
security future-option order as defined in CBOE Rule 1.1(zz), or any
other complex order as defined in CBOE Rule 6.53C. See CBOE Rule
6.42(3), Interpretation and Policy .01.
    \13\ The Exchange notes that the definition of a ``complex
order'' for purposes of CBOE's priority rules is different from the
definition of a ``complex trade'' for purposes of the options
intermarket linkage requirements described in CBOE Rules 6.80,
``Definitions,'' and 6.83, ``Order Protection.'' Under the options
intermarket linkage-related rules, a ``complex trade'' means the
execution of an order in an options series in conjunction with the
execution of one or more related order(s) in different options
series in the same underlying security occurring at or near the same
time for the equivalent number of contracts and for the purpose of
executing a particular investment strategy. See CBOE Rules 6.80(4)
and 6.83(b)(7).
    \14\ CBOE Rule 6.53C provides that the net price increment
applicable to complex orders that are routed to the electronic
complex order book (``COB'') will be either a multiple of the
minimum increment (i.e., $0.05 or $0.10, as applicable) or a one
cent increment, as determined on a class-by-class basis.
    \15\ See ISE Rule 722 and Securities Exchange Act Release No.
54124 (July 11, 2006), 71 FR 40567 (July 17, 2006) (order approving
File No. SR-ISE-2005-49).
    \16\ See supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the basis under the Act for the proposed
rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \17\
that a national securities exchange have rules that are designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and to
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will provide
investors with more flexibility in pricing stock-option orders and
security future-option orders and will increase the opportunity for
such orders to be executed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposal.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one that:
(i) Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the
public interest; (ii) does not impose any significant burden on
competition; and (iii) does not become operative for 30 days from the
date of filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if
consistent with the

protection of investors and the public interest. In addition, as
required under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\18\ the CBOE provided the
Commission with written notice of its intention to file the proposed
rule change, along with a brief description and the text of the
proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to filing the
proposal with the Commission. Therefore, the foregoing rule change has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \19\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) under the Act, a proposal does
not become operative for 30 days after the date of its filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The CBOE has asked the
Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay because the CBOE
believes that the proposal is substantially similar to ISE Rule 722 and
because the proposal clarifies the applicable reporting increments for
the options leg of stock-option and security future-option orders.
Accordingly, the CBOE believes that its proposal presents no novel
issues and that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest.
    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because the proposal will allow stock-option orders and security
future-option orders, like other types of complex orders, to be
executed in penny increments. Allowing stock-option and security
future-option orders to be executed in penny increments could
facilitate the execution of such orders by increasing the number of
price points at which these orders may be executed. For these reasons,
the Commission designates that the proposed rule change become
operative immediately.
    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate the rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-CBOE-2006-83 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-CBOE-2006-83. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/[fxsp0]rules/

sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of the filing
also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal
office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without
change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information
from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to
make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-
CBOE-2006-83 and should be submitted on or before December 7, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-19378 Filed 11-15-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 19 (Wednesday, January 29, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4624-4630]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01363]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0014; FRL-9903-88]

Indaziflam; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
indaziflam in or on coffee, banana, and palm oil. Bayer Crop Science
requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective January 29, 2014. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before March 31, 2014, 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: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0014, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-
5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lois Rossi, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email 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.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0014 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
March 31, 2014. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0014, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of February 15, 2013 (78 FR 32) (FRL-9378-
4), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
2E8125) by Bayer Crop Science, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive; P.O. Box 12014;
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. The petition requested that 40 CFR
180.653 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the
herbicide indaziflam, N-[(1R, 2S)-2,3-dihydro-2,6-dimethyl-1H-inden-1-
yl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamine]-6-(1-fluoroethyl) and its fluoroethyl-
indaziflam metabolite, each expressed as the parent compound, in or on
coffee at 0.01 part per million (ppm), banana at 0.01 ppm, and palm oil
at 0.03 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition
prepared by Bayer CropScience, the registrant, which is available in
the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. A comment was received on the
notice of filing. EPA's response to this comment is discussed in Unit
IV.C.

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 FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), 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 indaziflam including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with indaziflam follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
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.
    The nervous system is the major target for indaziflam toxicity in
rats and dogs, with the dog being the more sensitive species based on
neuropathology (degenerative nerve fibers in the brain, spinal cord and
sciatic nerve). Clinical signs of neurotoxicity were observed in the
acute, subchronic, and developmental neurotoxicity studies and
consisted primarily of tremors, changes in activity and reactivity,
repetitive chewing, dilated pupils, and oral, perianal, and nasal
staining. Similar clinical signs of neurotoxicity were observed in the
2-generation reproduction study, the rat chronic toxicity study, and
the combined rat carcinogenicity/chronic toxicity study. Neuropathology
findings were also observed in the rat manifested as focal/multifocal
vacuolation of the median eminence of the brain and the pituitary pars
nervosa and degenerative nerve fibers in the gasserian ganglion,
sciatic nerve, and tibial nerve. Evidence of neurotoxicity was not seen
in the mouse.
    Other organs affected by indaziflam in mice and rats include the
kidney, liver, thyroid, stomach, seminal vesicles, and ovaries. Effects
on the kidney were observed following chronic exposure in rats and mice
while effects on the liver were observed following chronic exposure in
the rat. Effects on the thyroid were only observed in multiple

dose rat studies. Chronic exposures also lead to atrophied or small
seminal vesicles in male and female mice. However, these effects
occurred at higher doses than those at which neurotoxicity was observed
in the dog.
    Decreased body weight gain was observed in most studies following
exposure to indaziflam. There was no evidence of immunotoxicity in the
available studies, which included a guideline immunotoxocity study in
the rat. No systemic effects were observed in the rat following a 28-
day dermal exposure period.
    No evidence of increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibility
was seen in developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits or in a
reproduction study in rats. In the rat developmental toxicity study,
decreased fetal weight was observed in the presence of maternal effects
that included decreased body weight gain and food consumption. No
developmental effects were observed in rabbits up to maternally toxic
dose levels. Decreased pup weight and delays in sexual maturation
(preputial separation in males and vaginal patency in females) were
observed in the rat 2-generation reproductive toxicity study, along
with clinical signs of toxicity, at a dose causing parental toxicity
that included coarse tremors, renal toxicity and decreased weight gain.
In the developmental neurotoxicity study, transiently decreased motor
activity (PND 21 only) in male offspring was observed and was
considered a potential neurotoxic effect. It was observed at a dose
that also caused clinical signs of neurotoxicity along with decreased
body weight in maternal animals.
    Indaziflam showed no evidence of carcinogenicity in the 2-year
dietary rat and mouse bioassays. All genotoxicity studies that were
conducted on indaziflam were negative.
    Testing in acute lethality studies with indaziflam resulted in low
toxicity via the oral, dermal, and inhalation routes of exposure.
Indaziflam was not an irritant to eyes Category IV) or skin and was not
a skin sensitizer.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by indaziflam 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 Indaziflam. Human Health Risk
Assessment to Support Proposed New Import Tolerances (Without a U.S.
Registration) on Banana, Coffee, and Palm Oil at page 33 in docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0014.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for indaziflam used for
human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.

  Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Indaziflam for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Point of departure and
          Exposure/scenario               uncertainty/safety     RfD, PAD, LOC for risk  Study and toxicological
                                               factors                 assessment                 effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (General population      NOAEL = 7.5 mg/kg/day..  Acute RfD = 0.075 mg/kg/ Subchronic Gavage
 including infants and children).      UFA = 10x..............   day.                     Toxicity Study in
                                       UFH =10x...............  aPAD = 0.075 mg/kg/day.   Dogs.
                                       FQPA SF = 1x...........                           LOAEL = 15 mg/kg/day
                                                                                based on axonal
                                                                                degenerative
                                                                                microscopic findings
                                                                                in the brain, spinal
                                                                                cord and sciatic
                                                                                nerve.
Chronic dietary (All populations)....  NOAEL= 2 mg/kg/day.....  Chronic RfD = 0.02 mg/   Chronic Dietary
                                       UFA = 10x..............   kg/day.                  Toxicity Study in
                                       UFH = 10x..............  cPAD = 0.02 mg/kg/day..   Dogs.
                                       FQPA SF = 1x...........                           LOAEL = 6/7 mg/kg/day M/
                                                                                F based on nerve fiber
                                                                                degenerative lesions
                                                                                in the brain, spinal
                                                                                cord and sciatic
                                                                                nerve.
Incidental oral short-term (1 to 30    NOAEL= 7.5 mg/kg/day...  LOC for MOE = 100......  Subchronic Gavage
 days).                                UFA = 10x..............                            Toxicity Study in
                                       UFH = 10x..............                            Dogs.
                                       FQPA SF = 1x...........                           LOAEL = 15 mg/kg/day
                                                                                based on axonal
                                                                                degenerative
                                                                                microscopic findings
                                                                                in the brain, spinal
                                                                                cord and sciatic
                                                                                nerve.
Incidental oral intermediate-term (1   NOAEL= 7.5 mg/kg/day...  LOC for MOE = 100......  Subchronic Gavage
 to 6 months).                         UFA = 10x..............                            Toxicity Study in
                                       UFH = 10x..............                            Dogs.
                                       FQPA SF = 1x...........                           LOAEL = 15 mg/kg/day
                                                                                based on axonal
                                                                                degenerative
                                                                                microscopic findings
                                                                                in the brain, spinal
                                                                                cord and sciatic
                                                                                nerve.

Dermal short-term (1 to 30 days).....  Dermal (or oral) study   LOC for MOE = 100......  Subchronic Gavage
                                        NOAEL = 7.5 mg/kg/day                             Toxicity Study in
                                        (dermal absorption                                Dogs.
                                        factor) = 7.3%.                                  LOAEL = 15 mg/kg/day
                                       UFA = 10x..............                            based on axonal
                                       UFH = 10x..............                            degenerative
                                       FQPA SF = 1x...........                            microscopic findings
                                                                                in the brain, spinal
                                                                                cord and sciatic
                                                                                nerve.
Dermal intermediate-term (1 to 6       Dermal (or oral) study   LOC for MOE = 100......  Subchronic Gavage
 months).                               NOAEL = 7.5 mg/kg/day                             Toxicity Study in
                                        (dermal absorption                                Dogs.
                                        factor) = 7.3%.                                  LOAEL = 15 mg/kg/day
                                       UFA = 10x..............                            based on axonal
                                       UFH = 10x..............                            degenerative
                                       FQPA SF = 1x...........                            microscopic findings
                                                                                in the brain, spinal
                                                                                cord and sciatic
                                                                                nerve.
Inhalation short-term (1 to 30 days).  Inhalation (or oral)     LOC for MOE = 100......  Subchronic Gavage
                                        study NOAEL = 7.5 mg/                             Toxicity Study in
                                        kg/day (Inhalation                                Dogs.
                                        toxicity considered                              LOAEL = 15 mg/kg/day
                                        equivalent to oral                                based on axonal
                                        toxicity).                                        degenerative
                                       UFA = 10x..............                            microscopic findings
                                       UFH = 10x..............                            in the brain, spinal
                                       FQPA SF = 1x...........                            cord and sciatic
                                                                                nerve.
Inhalation (1 to 6 months)...........  Inhalation (or oral)     LOC for MOE = 100......  Subchronic Gavage
                                        study NOAEL = 7.5 mg/                             Toxicity Study in
                                        kg/day (Inhalation                                Dogs.
                                        toxicity considered                              LOAEL = 15 mg/kg/day
                                        equivalent to oral                                based on axonal
                                        toxicity).                                        degenerative
                                       UFA = 10x..............                            microscopic findings
                                       UFH = 10x..............                            in the brain, spinal
                                       FQPA SF = 1x...........                            cord and sciatic
                                                                                nerve.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation)....  No evidence of carcinogenicity. Classified as ``Not Likely to be
                                        Carcinogenic to Humans.''
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level
  of concern. mg/kg/day = milligrams/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-
  level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor.
  UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among
  members of the human population (intraspecies). UFL = use of a LOAEL to extrapolate a NOAEL.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to indaziflam, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing indaziflam tolerances in 40 CFR
180.653. EPA assessed dietary exposures from indaziflam 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. Such effects were identified
for indaziflam. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food
consumption information from the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA)'s 2003-2008 National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). As to
residue levels in food, the acute dietary assessment assumes 100% crop
treated (PCT) along with tolerance or maximum residue level estimates
for indaziflam. It used DEEM-WWEIA analyses to estimate the dietary
exposure of the U.S. population and various population subgroups.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA's 2003-2008
NHANES/WWEIA. As to residue levels in food, the chronic dietary
assessment used the same residue levels, analysis and PCT assumptions
used in the acute dietary assessment.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that indaziflam does not pose a cancer risk to humans.
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing
cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA did not use
anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the dietary assessment
for indaziflam. Tolerance level residues and/or 100 PCT were assumed
for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for indaziflam in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of indaziflam. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on the 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
indaziflam equivalents for acute exposures are estimated to be 84 parts
per billion (ppb) for surface water and 3.7 ppb for ground water. For
chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments

the estimates are 26 ppb for surface water and 3.7 ppb for ground
water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 84 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 26 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Indaziflam is
currently registered for the following uses that could result in
residential exposures: Home lawn/turf and gardens/tree uses. There are
no new indaziflam residential uses associated with this regulatory
action. A re-evaluation of existing indaziflam residential uses was
conducted to incorporate updated policies and guidance in place since
previous risk assessments. Short-term dermal and inhalation handler
exposures for residential are expected for those making applications at
their homes and short-term dermal and incidental oral exposures are
expected via contact with residues following applications in outdoor
home environments. For adults, the highest exposure was from dermal
post-application high-contact (playing) activities on treated turf
during spray applications. The highest exposure scenarios for children
1<2 years old were from dermal post-application high-contact (playing)
and incidental oral exposure from treated turf. These exposure
scenarios were then combined to determine a total residential exposure
and risk estimate for children to be used for the aggregate assessment.
Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic
inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac/science/trac6a05.pdf.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found indaziflam to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and indaziflam does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
indaziflam does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

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. The toxicology database for
indaziflam consists of developmental toxicity studies in rats and
rabbits and a reproduction study in rats. No developmental effects were
observed in rabbits up to maternally toxic dose levels. Offspring
effects in the developmental toxicity study in rats, developmental
neurotoxicity study in rats, and the multigeneration toxicity study in
rats only occurred in the presence of maternal toxicity and were not
considered more severe than the parental effects. EPA concluded that
there is no evidence of increased quantitative or qualitative
susceptibility to rat or rabbit fetuses exposed in utero and/or post-
natally to indaziflam.
    3. Conclusion. 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 indaziflam is complete.
    ii. The endpoints selected for risk assessment are based on and are
protective of the neurotoxic effects seen in the guideline studies.
    iii. There is no evidence that indaziflam results in increased
susceptibility in utero in rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on tolerance or maximum residue levels for residues of concern and
assumed 100 PCT. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the
ground water and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to
indaziflam in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative
assumptions to assess dermal post-application exposure as well as
incidental oral exposure of children. These assessments will not
underestimate the exposure and risks posed by indaziflam.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to indaziflam will occupy 19% of the aPAD for infants <1 year old, the
population group receiving the greatest exposure.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
indaziflam from food and water will utilize 8% of the cPAD for infants
<1 year old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use
patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of indaziflam is not
expected.
    3. Short-and intermediate-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure
takes into account short-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level).
    Indaziflam is currently registered for uses that could result in
short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it
is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water
with short-term residential exposures to indaziflam.

    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water,
and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 1,400 for adults
(post-application) and 560 for children (post-application). Because
EPA's level of concern for indaziflam is a MOE of 100 or below, these
MOEs are not of concern.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, indaziflam is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
    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 indaziflam residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (liquid chromatography with tandem
mass spectrometry detection [LC/MS/MS] method (DH-003-P07-02) for fruit
and nut tree matrices for indaziflam and FDAT) 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>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level. The Codex has not
established a MRL for indaziflam.

C. Response to Comments

    EPA received a comment to the notice of filing which said that
pesticide residues should not be increased. The Agency understands the
commenter's concerns and recognizes that some individuals believe that
pesticides should be banned on agricultural crops. However, the
existing legal framework provided by section 408 of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) states that tolerances may be set when
persons seeking such tolerances or exemptions have demonstrated that
the pesticide meets the safety standard imposed by that statute. This
citizen's comment appears to be directed at the underlying statute and
not EPA's implementation of it; the citizen has made no contention that
EPA has acted in violation of the statutory framework.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of indaziflam,
N-[(1R, 2S)-2,3-dihydro-2,6-dimethyl-1H-inden-1-yl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-
diamine]-6-(1-fluoroethyl) and its fluoroethyl-indaziflam metabolite,
each expressed as the parent compound, in or on coffee, green bean at
0.01 ppm, banana at 0.01 ppm, and palm oil at 0.03 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d)
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, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain
any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), 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 FFDCA section 408(n)(4). 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) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    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) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: January 10, 2014.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.653, alphabetically add the following commodities,
redesignate footnote 1 as footnote 2, and add a new footnote 1 to the
table in paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  180.653  Indaziflam; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Banana \1\.................................................         0.01
Coffee, green bean \1\.....................................         0.01

                                * * * * *
Palm, oil \1\..............................................         0.03

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No U.S. Registrations as of 12/02/2013.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-01363 Filed 1-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P