[Federal Register: July 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 143)]
[Notices]
[Page 43975-43979]
[DOCID:fr27jy10-86]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9180-4]

California State Motor Vehicle and Nonroad Engine Pollution
Control Standards; Truck Idling Requirements; Opportunity for Public
Hearing and Request for Public Comment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of opportunity for public hearing and comment.

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

SUMMARY: The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has notified EPA
that it has adopted requirements to reduce idling emissions from new
and in-use trucks beginning in 2008. CARB's 2008 Truck Idling
Requirements apply to new California certified 2008 and subsequent
model year heavy-duty diesel engines in heavy-duty diesel vehicles with
a gross vehicle weight rating over 14,000 pounds, and to in-use diesel-
fueled commercial vehicles with gross vehicle weight ratings over
10,000 pounds that are equipped with sleeper berths. This notice
announces that EPA has tentatively scheduled a public hearing to
consider California's 2008 Truck Idling Requirements request and that
EPA is accepting written comment on the request.

DATES: EPA has tentatively scheduled a public hearing concerning CARB's

request on August 31, 2010 at 10 a.m. EPA will hold a hearing only if
any party notifies EPA by August 17, 2010, expressing its interest in
presenting oral testimony. By August 24, 2010, any person who plans to
attend the hearing may call Kristien Knapp at<PHONE_NUMBER> to learn
if a hearing will be held or may check the following Web page for an
update: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cafr.htm.
    Parties wishing to present oral testimony at the public hearing
should provide written notice to Kristien Knapp at the e-mail address
noted below. If EPA receives a request for a public hearing, that
hearing will be held at 1310 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005.
    If EPA does not receive a request for a public hearing, then EPA
will not hold a hearing, and instead consider CARB's request based on
written submissions to the docket. Any party may submit written
comments until October 1, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0317, by one of the following methods:
     On-Line at http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the On-Line
Instructions for Submitting Comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Air and Radiation Docket, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0317, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total
of two copies.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA
West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20460. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
    On-Line Instructions for Submitting Comments: Direct your comments
to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0317. EPA's policy is that all
comments received will be included in the public docket without change
and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment
directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your
e-mail address will automatically be captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    EPA will make available for public inspection materials submitted
by CARB, written comments received from any interested parties, and any
testimony given at the public hearing. Materials relevant to this
proceeding are contained in the Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, maintained in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0317.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and
Radiation Docket in the EPA Headquarters Library, EPA West Building,
Room 3334, located at 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
The Public Reading Room is open to the public on all Federal government
work days from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; generally, it is open Monday
through Friday, excluding holidays. The telephone number for the
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center's Web site is http://www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html.
The electronic mail (e-mail) address for the Air and Radiation Docket
is<EMAIL_ADDRESS>the telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and
the fax number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. An electronic version of the public
docket is available through the Federal government's electronic public
docket and comment system. You may access EPA dockets at http://
www.regulations.gov. After opening the http://www.regulations.gov Web
site, enter EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0317 in the ``Enter Keyword or ID'' fill-in
box to view documents in the record. Although a part of the official
docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
    EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality also maintains a Web
page that contains general information on its review of California
waiver requests. Included on that page are links to several of the
prior waiver Federal Register notices which are cited throughout
today's notice; the page can be accessed at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/
cafr.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristien Knapp, Compliance and
Innovative Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue (6405J), NW., Washington, DC 20460. Telephone:
(202) 343-9949. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. California's 2008 Truck Idling Requirements

    By letter dated May 9, 2008, CARB informed EPA that it had adopted
its 2008 Truck Idling Requirements, and requested that EPA confirm that
certain provisions of the requirements are not preempted by sections
209(a) of the Clean Air Act (Act); certain provisions are conditions
precedent pursuant to section 209(a) of the Act; \1\ certain provisions
are within-the-scope of previous waivers and authorizations issued
pursuant to sections 209(b) and 209(e) of the Act, respectively; and at
least one provision requires and merits a full authorization pursuant
to section 209(e) of the Act.\2\ CARB's 2008 Truck Idling Requirements
became effective California State law on November 15, 2006, amending
title 13, California Code of Regulations (CCR) sections 1956.8, 2404,
2424, 2425, and 2485.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA can confirm that a California requirement is a condition
precedent to sale, titling, or registration, if: (1) The
requirements do not constitute new or different standards or
accompanying enforcement procedures, and (2) the requirements do not
affect the basis for the previous waiver decision.
    \2\ California Air Resources Board (CARB) Letter to EPA
regarding, ``Requirements to Reduce Idling Emissions From New and
In-Use Trucks, Beginning in 2008; Request for Confirmation That
Certain Requirements are not Subject to Preemption Under Clean Air
Act Section 209(a) or Fall Within the Scope of Previously Granted
Waivers and Authorizations, and Request for New Authorization Under
Section 209(e)(2),'' EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0317-0001.
    \3\ See California Air Resources Board (CARB), ``Final
Regulation Order,'' EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0317-0011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CARB's 2008 Truck Idling Requirements consist of three elements:

(1) ``New engine requirements'' that require new California-certified
2008 and subsequent model year on-road diesel engines in vehicles with
a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 14,000 pounds (i.e.,
heavy-duty diesel vehicles or ``HDDV''s) be equipped with a system that
automatically shuts down the engine after five minutes of continuous
idling; (2) ``Sleeper truck requirements'' that require the operator of
a sleeper truck to manually shut down the engine after five minutes of
continuous idling; and (3) ``Alternative technology requirements'' that
establish in-use performance standards for HDDV operators who use
alternative technologies to supply power for truck cab or sleeper berth
climate control and/or other on-board accessories that otherwise would
have been generated by the continuous idling of the truck's main
engine.\4\ CARB requests, first, that EPA confirm that its new engine
requirements are not preempted by section 209(a) of the Act, or that
they are other conditions precedent required prior to the initial sale
of new heavy-duty diesel engines. Alternatively, CARB requests that if
EPA concludes that the new engine requirements are preempted by section
209(a) of the Act, then EPA confirm that the requirements are within-
the-scope of EPA's previously-issued waiver for 2007 and later model
year heavy-duty diesel engines. Second, CARB requests that EPA confirm
that its sleeper truck requirements are purely operational controls,
which are not preempted by section 209(a) of the Act. Third, CARB
requests the following determinations from EPA with respect to its
alternative technology requirements: (1) A within-the-scope
confirmation for its requirement that an alternative power supply (APS)
may only be operated if that engine has been certified to meet either
applicable California off-road or Federal nonroad emission standards
and test procedures for its fuel type and power category; \5\ (2) a
full authorization for its requirement that a driver may not operate a
diesel-fueled APS engine on a vehicle with a primary engine certified
to the 2007 and subsequent model year standards unless the APS is
certified to meet the applicable California or Federal standard and
meets one of three additional requirements; \6\ and (3) a determination
that its requirements pertaining to fuel-fired heaters, batteries, fuel
cells, and power inverter/chargers for on-shore power are not preempted
by section 209.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See California Air Resources Board (CARB), ``Waiver and
Authorization Action Support Document,'' pp. 1-13, EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-
0317-0002.
    \5\ CARB believes this requirement is within-the-scope of the
previous authorization for new nonroad engine standards because that
authorization already allows enforcement of California's requirement
that any new APS engine acquired since the 2000 model year is
required to meet the California or Federal nonroad engine emission
standards. (See 75 FR 8056 (February 23, 2010).)
    \6\ The additional requirements are one of the following: (a)
Exhaust routed into the truck's exhaust system and PM trap; (b) a
level 3 verified PM control strategy; or (c) use of other procedures
to demonstrate an equivalent level of emissions compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Clean Air Act New Motor Vehicle and Engine Waivers of Preemption

    Section 209(a) of the Clean Air Act preempts States and local
governments from setting emission standards for new motor vehicles and
engines; it provides:

    No State or any political subdivision thereof shall adopt or
attempt to enforce any standard relating to the control of emissions
from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines subject to this
part. No state shall require certification, inspection or any other
approval relating to the control of emissions from any new motor
vehicle or new motor vehicle engine as condition precedent to the
initial retail sale, titling (if any), or registration of such motor
vehicle, motor vehicle engine, or equipment.

Through operation of section 209(b) of the Act, California is able to
seek and receive a waiver of section 209(a)'s preemption. If certain
criteria are met, section 209(b)(1) of the Act requires the
Administrator, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, to
waive application of the prohibitions of section 209(a). Section
209(b)(1) only allows a waiver to be granted for any State that had
adopted standards (other than crankcase emission standards) for the
control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle
engines prior to March 30, 1966, if the State determines that its
standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public
health and welfare as applicable Federal standards (i.e., if such State
makes a ``protectiveness determination''). Because California was the
only State to have adopted standards prior to 1966, it is the only
State that is qualified to seek and receive a waiver.\7\ The
Administrator must grant a waiver unless she finds that: (A)
California's above-noted ``protectiveness determination'' is arbitrary
and capricious; \8\ (B) California does not need such State standards
to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions; \9\ or (C)
California's standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not
consistent with section 202(a) of the Act.\10\ EPA has previously
stated that consistency with section 202(a) requires that California's
standards must be technologically feasible within the lead time
provided, giving due consideration of costs, and that California and
applicable Federal test procedures be consistent.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See S.Rep. No. 90-403 at 632 (1967).
    \8\ CAA section 209(b)(1)(A).
    \9\ CAA section 209(b)(1)(B).
    \10\ CAA section 209(b)(1)(C).
    \11\ See, e.g., 74 FR 32767 (July 8, 2009); see also Motor and
Equipment Manufacturers Association v. EPA (MEMA I), 627 F.2d 1095,
1126 (DC Cir. 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second sentence of section 209(a) of the Act prevents States
from requiring, ``certification, inspection or any other approval
relating to the control of emissions from any new motor vehicle or new
motor vehicle engine as condition precedent to the initial retail sale,
titling (if any), or registration of such motor vehicle, motor vehicle
engine, or equipment.'' However, once EPA has granted California a
waiver of section 209(a)'s preemption for emission standards and/or
accompanying enforcement procedures, California may then require other
such conditions precedent.\12\ EPA can confirm that a California
requirement is a condition precedent to sale, titling, or registration,
if: (1) The requirements do not constitute new or different standards
or accompanying enforcement procedures, and (2) the requirements do not
affect the basis for the previous waiver decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ ``Once California receives a waiver for standards for a
certain class of motor vehicles, it need only meet the waiver
criteria of section 209(b) for regulations pertaining to those
vehicles when it adopts new or different standards or accompanying
enforcement procedures. Otherwise, California may adopt any other
condition precedent to the initial retail sale, titling, or
registration of those vehicles without the necessity of receiving a
further waiver of Federal preemption.'' 43 FR 36680 (August 18,
1978).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Clean Air Act Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Authorizations

    Section 209(e)(1) of the Act permanently preempts any State, or
political subdivision thereof, from adopting or attempting to enforce
any standard or other requirement relating to the control of emissions
for certain new nonroad engines or vehicles. Section 209(e)(2) of the
Act requires the Administrator to grant California authorization to
enforce its own standards for new nonroad engines or vehicles which are
not listed under section 209(e)(1), subject to certain restrictions. On
July 20, 1994, EPA promulgated a rule that sets forth, among other
things, the criteria, as found in section 209(e)(2), which EPA must
consider before granting any

California authorization request for new nonroad engine or vehicle
emission standards. On October 8, 2008, the regulations promulgated in
that rule were moved to 40 CFR Part 1074, and modified slightly.\13\ As
stated in the preamble to the section 209(e) rule, EPA has historically
interpreted the section 209(e)(2)(iii) ``consistency'' inquiry to
require, at minimum, that California standards and enforcement
procedures be consistent with section 209(a), section 209(e)(1), and
section 209(b)(1)(C) (as EPA has interpreted that subsection in the
context of section 209(b) motor vehicle waivers).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The applicable regulations, now in 40 CFR part 1074,
subpart B, Sec.  1074.105, provide:
    (a) The Administrator will grant the authorization if California
determines that its standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as
protective of public health and welfare as otherwise applicable
Federal standards.
    (b) The authorization will not be granted if the Administrator
finds that any of the following are true:
    (1) California's determination is arbitrary and capricious.
    (2) California does not need such standards to meet compelling
and extraordinary conditions.
    (3) The California standards and accompanying enforcement
procedures are not consistent with section 209 of the Act.
    (c) In considering any request from California to authorize the
State to adopt or enforce standards or other requirements relating
to the control of emissions from new nonroad spark-ignition engines
smaller than 50 horsepower, the Administrator will give appropriate
consideration to safety factors (including the potential increased
risk of burn or fire) associated with compliance with the California
standard.
    \14\ See 59 FR 36969 (July 20, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to be consistent with section 209(a), California's nonroad
standards and enforcement procedures must not apply to new motor
vehicles or new motor vehicle engines. To be consistent with section
209(e)(1), California's nonroad standards and enforcement procedures
must not attempt to regulate engine categories that are permanently
preempted from State regulation. To determine consistency with section
209(b)(1)(C), EPA typically reviews nonroad authorization requests
under the same ``consistency'' criteria that are applied to motor
vehicle waiver requests. Pursuant to section 209(b)(1)(C), the
Administrator shall not grant California a motor vehicle waiver if she
finds that California ``standards and accompanying enforcement
procedures are not consistent with section 202(a)'' of the Act.
Previous decisions granting waivers and authorizations have noted that
State standards and enforcement procedures are inconsistent with
section 202(a) if: (1) There is inadequate lead time to permit the
development of the necessary technology giving appropriate
consideration to the cost of compliance within that time, or (2) the
Federal and State testing procedures impose inconsistent certification
requirements.

IV. Within-the-Scope Determinations

    If California amends regulations that were previously granted a
waiver of preemption, EPA can confirm that the amended regulations are
within-the-scope of the previously granted waiver. Such within-the-
scope amendments are permissible without a full waiver review if three
conditions are met. First, the amended regulations must not undermine
California's determination that its standards, in the aggregate, are as
protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal
standards. Second, the amended regulations must not affect consistency
with section 202(a) of the Act. Third, the amended regulations must not
raise any ``new issues'' affecting EPA's prior waivers.

V. EPA's Request for Public Comment

    When EPA receives a new waiver or authorization request from CARB,
EPA traditionally publishes a notice of opportunity for public hearing
and comment in the Federal Register. Then, after the comment period has
closed and EPA has evaluated CARB's request in light of the
administrative record, EPA publishes a notice of decision in the
Federal Register. In contrast, when EPA receives a request from CARB
that EPA confirm that CARB amendments are within-the-scope of previous
waivers and/or authorizations, EPA typically publishes a notice of its
decision in the Federal Register and concurrently invites public
comment if an interested party is opposed to EPA's decision. Because
CARB's request for its 2008 Truck Idling Requirements includes at least
one requirement that CARB believes require a new full authorization,
EPA invites public comment on the entire request, including but not
limited to the following issues.
    First, should EPA consider CARB's new engine requirements as non-
preempted operational controls, or as conditions precedent? In the
alternative, if CARB's new engine requirements should be treated as
standards relating to the control of emissions or accompanying
enforcement procedures, should they be subject to and do they meet the
criteria for EPA to confirm that they are within-the-scope of EPA's
waiver for new heavy-duty diesel engines for 2007 and subsequent model
years? To the extent the new engine requirements should be treated as
standards relating to the control of emissions or accompanying
enforcement procedures and require a full waiver from EPA, do the
requirements meet the full waiver criteria?
    Second, are CARB's sleeper truck requirements properly considered
an operational control and thus not preempted by section 209 of the
Act? To the extent that CARB's sleeper truck requirements should be
treated as standards relating to the control of emissions from new
motor vehicles or engines or accompanying enforcement procedures and
require a full waiver from EPA, do the requirements meet the criteria
for a full waiver?
    Third, with respect to CARB's alternative technology requirements,
EPA presents the following specific questions: (1) Does CARB's
requirement that an APS using an internal combustion engine be
certified to meet either California off-road or Federal nonroad
emission standards and test procedures meet the requirements for
finding that it is within-the-scope of the authorization EPA issued for
new nonroad engine standards, thus not requiring a full authorization?;
\15\ (2) If not, does CARB's requirement that an APS using an internal
combustion engine be certified to meet either California off-road or
Federal nonroad emission standards and test procedures meet the
requirements for a full authorization?; (3) Does CARB's requirement
that a diesel-fueled APS engine be certified to the California or
Federal 2007 and subsequent model year standards and meet one of three
other listed requirements \16\ meet the criteria for a full
authorization?; and (4) Are CARB's requirements pertaining to fuel-
fired heaters, batteries, fuel cells, power inverter/chargers for on-
shore power, and truck electrification preempted under section 209 of
the Clean Air Act, and if so, do they meet the requirements for waiver
under section 209(b) or authorization under section 209(e)?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 75 FR 8056 (February 23, 2010).
    \16\ The additional requirements are one of the following: (a)
Exhaust routed into the truck's exhaust system and PM trap; (b) a
level 3 verified PM control strategy; or (c) use of other procedures
to demonstrate an equivalent level of emissions compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As called out by these specific questions, EPA is seeking threshold
input on whether to treat various elements of CARB's 2008 Truck Idling
Requirements as conditions precedent, within-the-scope of previous
waivers and authorizations, not preempted by section 209, or in need of
a full waiver or authorization. After determining which analysis to
conduct, EPA will likely review the requirements

according to its traditional criteria, and therefore, seeks substantive
comment on whether the various elements of CARB's 2008 Truck Idling
Requirements meet the applicable criteria for confirmation as
conditions precedent,\17\ within-the-scope,\18\ non-preemption,\19\ and
full waiver \20\ or authorization.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ EPA has previously stated that, ``Once California receives
a waiver for standards for a certain class of motor vehicles, it
need only meet the waiver criteria of section 209(b) for regulations
pertaining to those vehicles when it adopts new or different
standards or accompanying enforcement procedures. Otherwise,
California may adopt any other condition precedent to the initial
retail sale, titling, or registration of those vehicles without the
necessity of receiving a further waiver of Federal preemption.'' 43
FR 36680 (August 18, 1978).
    \18\ As stated in Section IV above, EPA's inquiry for within-
the-scope confirmations requires that: (1) The amended regulations
must not undermine California's determination that its standards, in
the aggregate, are as protective of public health and welfare as
applicable Federal standards; (2) the amended regulations must not
affect consistency with section 202(a) of the Act; and (3) the
amended regulations must not raise any ``new issues'' affecting
EPA's prior waivers.
    \19\ A requirement is not preempted if it is not a ``standard
relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or any
new motor vehicle engines subject to [Title II of the Clean Air
Act],'' or ``certification, inspection or any other approval
relating to the control of emissions from any new motor vehicle or
new motor vehicle engine as condition precedent to the initial
retail sale, titling (if any), or registration of such motor
vehicle, motor vehicle engine, or equipment.'' CAA Sec.  209(a).
    \20\ As stated in Section II above, the Administrator must grant
a waiver unless she finds that: (A) California's ``protectiveness
determination'' is arbitrary and capricious; (B) California does not
need such State standards to meet compelling and extraordinary
conditions; or (C) California's standards and accompanying
enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 202(a) of the
Act. EPA has previously stated that ``consistency with section
202(a) requires that California's standards must be technologically
feasible within the lead time provided, given due consideration of
costs, and that California and applicable Federal test procedures be
consistent.
    \21\ As stated in Section III above, the Administrator must
grant an authorization unless she finds that: (A) California's
``protectiveness determination'' is arbitrary and capricious; (B)
California does not need such standards to meet compelling and
extraordinary conditions; or (C) California's standards and
accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section
209 of the Act. EPA has clarified through rulemaking that
consistency with section 209 requires, at minimum, that California
standards and enforcement procedures be consistent with section
209(a), section 209(e)(1), and section 209(b)(1)(C) (as EPA has
interpreted that subsection in the context of section 209(b) motor
vehicle waivers). See 40 CFR 1074.105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Procedures for Public Participation

    In recognition that public hearings are designed to give interested
parties an opportunity to participate in this proceeding, there are no
adverse parties as such. Statements by participants will not be subject
to cross-examination by other participants without special approval by
the presiding officer. The presiding officer is authorized to strike
from the record statements that he or she deems irrelevant or
repetitious and to impose reasonable time limits on the duration of the
statement of any participant.
    If a hearing is held, the Agency will make a verbatim record of the
proceedings. Interested parties may arrange with the reporter at the
hearing to obtain a copy of the transcript at their own expense.
Regardless of whether a public hearing is held, EPA will keep the
record open until October 1, 2010. Upon expiration of the comment
period, the Administrator will render a decision on CARB's request
based on the record from the public hearing, if any, all relevant
written submissions, and other information that she deems pertinent.
All information will be available for inspection at the EPA Air Docket
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0317.
    Persons with comments containing proprietary information must
distinguish such information from other comments to the greatest extent
possible and label it as ``Confidential Business Information'' (CBI).
If a person making comments wants EPA to base its decision on a
submission labeled as CBI, then a non-confidential version of the
document that summarizes the key data or information should be
submitted to the public docket. To ensure that proprietary information
is not inadvertently placed in the public docket, submissions
containing such information should be sent directly to the contact
person listed above and not to the public docket. Information covered
by a claim of confidentiality will be disclosed by EPA only to the
extent allowed, and according to the procedures set forth in 40 CFR
Part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies the submission when
EPA receives it, EPA will make it available to the public without
further notice to the person making comments.

    Dated: July 20, 2010.
Margo Tsirigotis Oge,
Director, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Office of Air and
Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2010-18362 Filed 7-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 5, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 18747]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7983]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 4784-081]

Teton Power Funding, LLC; Topsham Hydro Partners Limited
Partnership; Topsham Hydroelectric Generating Facility Trust No. 1;
Brown Bear Power, LLC; Notice of Application for Partial Transfer of
License, and Soliciting Comments and Motions To Intervene

    On March 9, 2011, Teton Power Funding, LLC (transferor), Topsham
Hydro Partners Limited Partnership, Topsham Hydroelectric Generating
Facility Trust No. 1 (co-licensees) and Brown Bear Power, LLC
(transferee) filed an application for the partial transfer of license
for the Pejepscot Project No. 4784, located on the Androscoggin River
in Sagadahoc, Cumberland, and Androscoggin counties, Maine.
    Applicants seek Commission approval to partial transfer of the
license for the Pejescot Project from the transferor to transferee.
    Applicants' Contact: Transferor: Teton Power Funding, LLC: Paul
Rapisarda, c/o Atlantic Power Corporation, 200 Clarendon Street, 25th
Floor, Boston, MA 02116,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Co-licensees: Topsham
Hydroelectric Generating Facility Trust No. 1: Nicole Poole, Topsham
Hydroelectric Generating Facilities Trust No. 1, c/o U.S. Bank National
Association, not in its individual capacity, but solely as Owner
Trustee, 300 Delaware Avenue, 9th floor, Wilmington, DE 19801, (302)
576-3704. Topsham Hydro Partners Limited Partnership: Christine M.
Miller, Brown Bear GP, LLC, c/o ArcLight Capital Partners, LLC, 200
Clarendon Street, 55th Floor, Boston, MA 02117,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Transferee: Christine M. Miller, Brown Bear Power, LLC, c/o ArcLight
Capital Partners, LLC, 200 Clarendon Street, 55th Floor, Boston, MA
02117,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Deadline for filing comments and motions to intervene: 20 days from
the issuance date of this notice. Comments and motions to intervene may
be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site under http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. If unable to be filed electronically, documents may be paper-
filed. To paper-file, an original plus seven copies should be mailed
to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. More information about
this project can be viewed or printed on the eLibrary link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-4784) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

    Dated: March 17, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-7983 Filed 4-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 38 (Wednesday, February 26, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10670-10678]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04164]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0638; FRL-9906-70]

Fluxapyroxad; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
fluxapyroxad in or on multiple commodities which are identified and
discussed later in this document. BASF Corporation requested these
tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective February 26, 2014. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before April 28, 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-2012-0638, 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: [(703) 305-7090; 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. If OCSPP test
guidelines are cited, insert the following: To access the OCSPP test
guidelines referenced in this document electronically, please go to
http://www.epa.gov/ocspp and select ``Test Methods and Guidelines.''

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-2012-0638 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
April 28, 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-2012-0638, 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 December 19, 2012 (77 FR 75082) (FRL-
9372-6), January 16, 2013 (78 FR 3377) (FRL-9375-4), and July 19, 2013
(78 FR 43115) (FRL-9392-9), EPA issued notices pursuant to FFDCA
section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a
pesticide petitions (PP 2F8053, PP 2F8058 and PP 3F8161 by BASF
Corporation, 26 Davis Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. The
petitions requested that 40 CFR 180.666 be amended by establishing
tolerances for residues of the fungicide fluxapyroxad, 3-
(difluoromethyl)-1-methyl-N-(3',4',5'-trifluoro[1,1'-biphenyl]-2-yl)-
1H-pyrazole-4-carboxamide, in or on almond at 0.05 parts per million
(ppm); almond, hulls at 4.0 ppm; berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G at
4.0 ppm; bushberry, subgroup 13-07B at 6.0 ppm; caneberry, subgroup 13-
07A at 6.0 ppm; fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit,
subgroup 13-07F at 2.0 ppm; grapes at 2.0 ppm; grapes, raisin at 5.7
ppm; pecans at 0.05 ppm; rice, bran at 8.5 ppm; rice, grain at 5.0 ppm;
rice, hulls strawberry at 4.0 ppm; sugarcane, cane at 3.0 ppm;
vegetable, brassica leafy, group 5 at 3.0 ppm; vegetable, bulb, group
3-07 at 0.8 ppm; vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 at 0.4 ppm; vegetable,
leafy, except brassica, group 4 at 15.0 ppm; vegetable, root, except
sugar beet, subgroup 1B at 0.7 ppm (PP 2F8053); nongrass animal feeds,
group 18 at 0.5 ppm; mint at 0.05 ppm (PP 2F8058); and by amending the
tolerance for fruit, stone, group 12 from 2.0 ppm to 3.0 ppm (PP
3F8161). The documents referenced summaries of the petitions prepared
by BASF Corporation, the registrant, which are available in dockets
EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0638 (PP 2F8053), EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0924 (PP 2F8058), and
EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0477 (PP 3F8161), http://www.regulations.gov.
    Based on EPA's review of the data supporting the petitions, BASF
Corporation revised their petition PP 2F8053 by proposing tolerances
for fish-freshwater finfish; fish-shelfish, crustacean; and hog, meat
byproducts; and by decreasing, increasing, or deleting previously
proposed tolerances for various commodities, as follows: Almond at 0.02
parts per million (ppm); almond, hulls at 4.0 ppm; berry, low growing,
subgroup 13-07G at 4.0 ppm; bushberry, subgroup 13-07B at 7.0 ppm;
caneberry, subgroup 13-07A at 5.0 ppm; fish-freshwater finfish at 0.01
ppm; fish-shellfish, crustacean at 0.01 ppm; fruit, small, vine
climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F at 2.0 ppm; grape,
raisin at 5.7 ppm; hog, meat byproducts at 0.01 ppm; pecan at 0.06 ppm;
rice, bran at 8.5 ppm; rice, grain at 5.0 ppm; rice, hulls at 15.0 ppm;
sugarcane, cane at 3.0 ppm; vegetable, brassica leafy, group 5 at 4.0
ppm; vegetable, bulb, group 3-07 at 1.5 ppm; vegetable, cucurbit, group
9 at 0.5 ppm; vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group 4 at 30.0 ppm;
vegetable, root, except sugarbeet, subgroup 1B at 0.9 ppm. EPA issued a
notice announcing the filing of the revised petition in the Federal
Register of November 27, 2013 (78 FR 70906) (FRL-9902-87). That
document referenced a summary of the revised petition prepared by BASF,
which is available in docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0638.
    Three comments were received on the notices of filing. EPA's
response to the comments 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 fluxapyroxad including exposure resulting from
the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of
exposures and risks associated with fluxapyroxad 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.
    Fluxapyroxad is of low acute toxicity by the oral, dermal and
inhalation routes, is not irritating to the eyes and skin, and is not a
dermal sensitizer. The primary target organ for fluxapyroxad exposure
via the oral route is the liver with secondary toxicity in the thyroid
for rats only. Liver toxicity was observed in rats, mice, and dogs,
with rats as the most sensitive species for all durations of exposure.
In rats, adaptive effects of hepatocellular hypertrophy and increased
liver weights and changes in liver enzyme activities were first
observed. As the dose or duration of exposure to fluxapyroxad
increased, clinical chemistry changes related to liver function also
occurred, followed by hepatocellular necrosis, neoplastic changes in
the liver, and tumors. Thyroid effects were observed only in rats.
These effects were secondary to changes in liver enzyme regulation,
which increased metabolism of thyroid hormone, resulting in changes in
thyroid hormones, thyroid follicular hypertrophy and hyperplasia, and
thyroid tumor formation. Tumors were not observed in species other than
rats or in organs other than the liver and thyroid.
    Fluxapyroxad is classified as ``Not likely to be Carcinogenic to
Humans'' based on convincing evidence that carcinogenic effects are not
likely below a defined dose range. There is no mutagenicity concern
from in vivo or in vitro assays. The hypothesized mode of action (i.e.,
a non-genotoxic) for treatment related tumors (i.e., the liver and
thyroid) was supported by a full panel of in vitro and in vivo studies
that showed no evidence of genotoxicity, together with mechanistic
studies in the liver and thyroid of rats that satisfied stringent
criteria for establishing tumorgenic modes of action. The studies
clearly identified the sequence of key events, dose-response
concordance and temporal relationship to the tumor types. The Agency
has determined that the chronic population adjusted dose (PAD) will
adequately account for all chronic effects, including carcinogenicity
that could result from exposure to fluxapyroxad because the points of
departure (POD) for the chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD) is
based on the most sensitive endpoint, liver effects. Effects in the
liver preceded liver tumors and the effects observed in the thyroid (in
rats only) were believed to be secondary to the liver effects.
    No evidence of neurotoxicity was observed in response to repeated
administration of fluxapyroxad. An acute neurotoxicity study showed
decreased rearing and motor activity. This occurred on the day of
dosing only and in the absence of histopathological effects or
alterations in brain weights. This indicated that any neurotoxic
effects of fluxapyroxad are likely to be transient and reversible due
to alterations in neuropharmacology and not from neuronal damage. There
were no neurotoxic effects observed in the subchronic dietary toxicity
study. No evidence of reproductive toxicity was observed. Developmental
effects observed in both rats and mice (thyroid follicular hypertrophy
and hyperplasia in rats and decreased defecation, food consumption,
body weight/body weight gain, and increased litter loss in rabbits)
occurred at the same doses as those that caused adverse effects in
maternal animals, indicating no quantitative susceptibility. Since the
maternal toxicities of thyroid hormone perturbation in rats and
systemic toxicity in rabbits likely contributed to the observed
developmental effects there is low concern for qualitative
susceptibility. An immunotoxicity study in mice showed no evidence of
immunotoxic effects from fluxapyroxad.
    Subchronic oral toxicity studies in rats, developmental toxicity
studies in rabbits, and in vitro and in vivo genotoxicity studies were
performed for fluxapyroxad metabolites F700F001, M700F002, and
M700F048. Like fluxapyroxad, no genotoxic effects were observed for any
of these metabolites. All three metabolites displayed lower subchronic
toxicity via the oral route than fluxapyroxad, with evidence of non-
specific toxicity (decreased body weight) observed only for M700F0048
at the limit dose. Only M700F0048 exhibited developmental toxicity at
doses similar to those that caused developmental effects in rabbits
with fluxapyroxad treatment. However, these effects (abortions and
resorptions) were of a different nature than for fluxapyroxad (paw
hyperflexion) and are considered secondary to maternal toxicity. The
Agency considers these studies sufficient for hazard identification and
characterization and concludes that these metabolites do not have
hazards that exceed those of fluxapyroxad in nature, severity, or
potency.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by fluxapyroxad 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, ``Human Health Risk Assessment for Use
of Fluxapyroxad on Numerous Crops'' at pp. 52 in docket ID number EPA-
HQ-OPP-2012-0638.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological 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 the NOAEL and the LOAEL are identified. Uncertainty/safety
factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe
exposure level--generally referred to as a 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 fluxapyroxad used for
human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.

 Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Fluxapyroxad for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Point of departure and
          Exposure/Scenario               uncertainty/safety     RfD, PAD, LOC for risk         Study and
                                               factors                 assessment         toxicological effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (General population      NOAEL = 125 mg/kg/day..  Acute RfD = 1.25 mg/kg/  Acute neurotoxicity
 including infants and children, and   UFA = 10x..............   day..                    study in rats.
 females 13-49 years of age).          UFH = 10x..............  aPAD = 1.25 mg/kg/day..  LOAEL = 500 mg/kg/day
                                       FQPA SF = 1x...........                            based on decreased
                                                                                motor activity and
                                                                                decreased rearing.
Chronic dietary (All populations)....  NOAEL = 2.1 mg/kg/day..  Chronic RfD = 0.021 mg/  Chronic toxicity/
                                       UFA = 10x..............   kg/day..                 carcinogenicity study
                                       UFH = 10x..............  cPAD = 0.021 mg/kg/day.   in rats.
                                       FQPA SF = 1x...........                           LOAEL = 11 mg/kg/day
                                                                                based on non-
                                                                                neoplastic changes in
                                                                                the liver (foci,
                                                                                masses).
Incidental oral short-term (1 to 30    NOAEL = 9 mg/kg/day....  LOC for MOE = 100......  28-day oral toxicity
 days).                                UFA = 10x..............                            study in rats.
                                       UFH = 10x..............                           LOAEL = 176 mg/kg/day
                                       FQPA SF = 1x...........                            based on changes in
                                                                                thyroid hormones and
                                                                                thyroid follicular
                                                                                hypertrophy/
                                                                                hyperplasia.
                                      --------------------------------------------------
Dermal short- and intermediate-term                  No hazard identified                28-day dermal toxicity
 (1 day to 6 months).                                                                     study in rats.
                                                                                LOAEL = Not observed.
                                      --------------------------------------------------
Inhalation short-term (1 to 30 days).  NOAEL= 9 mg/kg/day.....  LOC for MOE = 100......  28-day oral toxicity
                                       UFA = 10x..............                            study in rats.
                                       UFH = 10x..............                           LOAEL = 176 mg/kg/day
                                       FQPA SF = 1x...........                            based on changes in
                                                                                thyroid hormones and
                                                                                thyroid follicular
                                                                                hypertrophy/
                                                                                hyperplasia.
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inhalation intermediate-term (1 to 6   Inhalation (or oral)     LOC for MOE = 100......  90-day dietary study in
 months).                               study NOAEL = 7.3 mg/                             rats.
                                        kg/day.                                          LOAEL = 35.1 mg/kg/day
                                       UFA = 10x..............                            based on thyroid
                                       UFH = 10x..............                            follicular hypertrophy/
                                       FQPA SF = 1x...........                            hyperplasia.
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation)....       Classification: Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans at doses
                                        sufficient to induce liver and/or thyroid tumors. Quantification of risk
                                         using a non-linear approach (i.e., RfD) will adequately account for all
                                                      chronic toxicity, including carcinogenicity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level
  of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/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).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to fluxapyroxad, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing fluxapyroxad tolerances in 40
CFR 180.666. EPA assessed dietary exposures from fluxapyroxad 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 fluxapyroxad. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food
consumption information from the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) 2003-2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in
food, EPA used tolerance level residues adjusted upward to account for
metabolites of concern not included in the tolerance expression, 100
percent crop treated (PCT) assumptions, and dietary exposure evaluation
model (DEEM) default and empirical processing factors.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment, EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 2003-2008
NHANES/WWEIA. As to residue levels in food, a moderately refined
chronic dietary exposure analysis was performed. An assumption of 100
PCT and DEEM default and empirical processing factors were used for the
chronic dietary analysis. Combined average field trial residues for
parent and highest average field trial residues for metabolites of
concern were used for all plant commodities. For livestock commodities
tolerance level residues adjusted upward to account for metabolites of
concern not included in the tolerance expression were used.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that a nonlinear RfD approach is appropriate for assessing
cancer risk to fluxapyroxad. Cancer risk was assessed using the same
exposure estimates as discussed in Unit III.C.1.ii., chronic exposure.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and
information on

the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the
actual levels of pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If
EPA relies on such information, EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA
section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is
established, modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels
in food are not above the levels anticipated. For the present action,
EPA will issue such data call-ins as are required by FFDCA section
408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be
required to be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of
issuance of these tolerances.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for fluxapyroxad in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of fluxapyroxad. 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 Tier 1 Rice Model and the Pesticide Root Zone Model
Ground Water (PRZM GW), the estimated drinking water concentrations
(EDWCs) of fluxapyroxad for acute exposures are estimated to be 127
parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 203 ppb for ground water.
The EDWCs for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are
estimated to be 127 ppb for surface water and 184 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 203 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 184 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). Fluxapyroxad is
registered for the following uses that could result in residential
exposures: residential turf. EPA assessed residential exposure using
the following assumptions: Residential handler exposures are expected
to be short-term (1 to 30 days) via either the dermal or inhalation
routes of exposures. Intermediate-term exposures are not likely because
of the intermittent nature of applications by homeowners. Since no
dermal hazard was identified for fluxapyroxad, MOEs were calculated for
the inhalation route of exposure only.
    Both adults and children may be exposed to fluxapyroxad residues
from contact with treated lawns. Adult postapplication exposures were
not quantitatively assessed since no dermal hazard was identified for
fluxapyroxad and inhalation exposures are typically negligible in
outdoor settings. The exposure assessment for children included
incidental oral exposure resulting from transfer of residues from the
hands or objects to the mouth, and from incidental ingestion of soil.
Post application hand-to-mouth and object-to-mouth exposures are
expected to be short-term (1 to 30 days) in duration due to the
intermittent nature of applications in residential environments.
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 fluxapyroxad to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and fluxapyroxad does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
fluxapyroxad 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. No evidence of quantitative
susceptibility was observed in a reproductive and developmental
toxicity study in rats or in developmental toxicity studies in rats and
rabbits. Developmental toxicity data in rats showed decreased body
weight and body weight gain in the offspring at the same dose levels
that caused thyroid follicular hypertrophy/hyperplasia in parental
animals. Effects in rabbits were limited to paw hyperflexion, a
malformation that is not considered to result from a single exposure
and that usually reverses as the animal matures. Developmental effects
observed in both rats and rabbits occurred at the same doses as those
that caused adverse effects in maternal animals, indicating no
quantitative susceptibility. The Agency has low concern for
developmental toxicity because the observed effects were of low
severity, were likely secondary to maternal toxicity, and demonstrated
clear NOAELs. Further, the NOAELs for these effects were at dose levels
higher than the points of departure selected for risk assessment for
repeat-exposure scenarios. Therefore, based on the available data and
the selection of risk assessment endpoints that are protective of
developmental effects, there are no residual uncertainties with regard
to pre- and/or postnatal toxicity.
    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 fluxapyroxad is complete. Although no
subchronic inhalation data is available EPA has waived that data
requirement based on, among other things, its conclusion that even if
an additional 10x safety factor was applied, inhalation exposure would
not raise a risk of concern.
    ii. There is no indication that fluxapyroxad is a neurotoxic
chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study
or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity. Neither the acute or
the subchronic neurotoxicity studies indicated specific neurotoxicity
responses to fluxapyroxad. Because fluxapyroxad can disrupt thyroid

hormone levels, the Agency considered the potential for fluxapyroxad to
cause developmental neurotoxicity as a result of thyroid hormone
disruption, which is more sensitive endpoint than the endpoints used in
a developmental neurotoxicity study. Based on its evaluation of thyroid
hormone data submitted for fluxapyroxad and the ontogeny of thyroid
hormone metabolism, the Agency has determined that adverse thyroid
hormone disruptions in the young are unlikely to occur at dose levels
as low as the points of departure chosen for risk assessment. The
Agency has low concern for neurotoxic effects of fluxapyroxad at any
life stage.
    iii. Based on the developmental and reproductive toxicity studies
discussed in Unit III.D.2., there are no residual uncertainties with
regard to prenatal and/or postnatal toxicity.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues or field trial residue data.
The dietary risk assessment is based on reliable data, is conservative
and will not underestimate dietary exposure to fluxapyroxad. EPA made
conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water
modeling used to assess exposure to fluxapyroxad in drinking water. EPA
used similarly conservative assumptions to assess postapplication
exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers.
These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed
by fluxapyroxad.

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 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 fluxapyroxad will occupy 12% of the aPAD for children 3-5 years 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
fluxapyroxad from food and water will utilize 64% of the cPAD for
infants (< 1year 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
fluxapyroxad is not expected.
    3. Short-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). Fluxapyroxad
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 fluxapyroxad. 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 320 for adults and 560 for
children. Because EPA's level of concern for fluxapyroxad is a MOE of
100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level). An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however,
fluxapyroxad is not registered for any use patterns that would result
in intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term risk is
assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term residential
exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under
the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as
the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no further assessment
of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic
dietary risk assessment for evaluating intermediate-term risk for
fluxapyroxad.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. EPA classified
fluxapyroxad as ``Not likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans'' based on
convincing evidence that carcinogenic effects are not likely below a
defined dose range. The Agency has determined that the quantification
of risk using the cPAD for fluxapyroxad will adequately account for all
chronic toxicity, including carcinogenicity, that could result from
exposure to fluxapyroxad. The POD for the cPAD is based on the most
sensitive endpoint, liver effects. Effects in the liver preceded liver
tumors and the effects observed in the thyroid (in rats only) were
believed to be secondary to the liver effects. As noted above, chronic
exposure to fluxapyroxad from food and water will utilize 64% of the
cPAD for infants (< 1year old) the population group receiving the
greatest exposure.
    6. 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 fluxapyroxad residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    A Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometer/Mass Spectrometer (LC/MS/
MS) method is available as an enforcement method. This method uses
reversed-phase High Pressure Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) with gradient
elution, and includes 2 ion transitions to be monitored for the parent
fluxapyroxad.
    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 MRLs for fluxapyroxad on the
commodities subject in this notice.

C. Response to Comments

    Three anonymous public comments were received opposing
establishment

of the requested tolerances. The first commenter alleges that there is
already too much toxicity from pesticide chemicals in the U.S. and EPA
should not allow more pesticide residues on food. The second commenter
claims that a data gap exists for maximum residues of fluxapyroxad in
wheat and for accumulation of fluxapyroxad residues in soil and argues
that EPA should require testing of pesticides when combined with other
pesticides. The third anonymous commenter states that the U.S. should
no longer allow the importation of pet foods from China. The Department
of Utility, City of Sacramento, California submitted a comment on the
application by BASF to register fluxapyroxad for use on rice under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. 136 et
seq. Several issues in that comment pertain to EPA's risk assessment
for the fluxapyroxad tolerance petition. The Department of Utility
expresses concern with the potential human health effects of breakdown
products (metabolites, degradates, transformations products) that occur
both prior and subsequent to water treatment, the effects of water
treatment on the removal of fluxapyroxad residues, and the potential
synergistic effects from exposure to multiple rice pesticides in
drinking water.
    The anonymous commenters either raise irrelevant or non-specific
issues, make unsubstantiated claims, or are mistaken in their
allegations. General claims regarding the toxicity of other pesticides
and objections to the import of pet food from China do not raise safety
concerns regarding EPA's assessment of the risk from aggregate exposure
to fluxapyroxad. With regard to potential cumulative effects from the
interaction of fluxapyroxad with other substances, EPA has addressed
this issue in Unit III. C. 4., above. Finally, the commenter who claims
there are data gaps is mistaken. The Agency determined that the
available residue chemistry data for fluxapyroxad are sufficient to
support the established tolerances for registered wheat uses. No data
gaps were identified for wheat commodities or for rotational crop
commodities. Additionally, the fluxapyroxad product label statements
restrict crop rotation to commodities listed on the label.
    The remaining comments raised by Sacramento's Department of Utility
express concerns with EPA's examination of breakdown products from
fluxapyroxad, and fluxapyroxad residue removal through water treatment
in a drinking water plant. EPA possesses a full complement of standard
metabolism and environmental fate studies on fluxapyroxad, as specified
under 40 CFR 158.1300 and 158.1410. These include hydrolysis (OCSPP
Guideline 835.2120), aqueous photolysis (OCSPP Guideline 835.2240),
aerobic soil metabolism, and aerobic aquatic metabolism studies (OCSPP
Guidelines 835.4100/4200 and 835.4300/4400). While these studies
provide general information on the fate of fluxapyroxad and its
metabolites in the environment, they do not directly address the
chemicals' fate during drinking water treatment, and were therefore
used only for qualitative characterization of such effects. The studies
show that fluxapyroxad is stable to hydrolysis and aquatic degradation,
therefore the chemical is not expected to degrade during drinking water
treatment, and/or subsequent delivery of treated water to the
consumer's tap. Because fluxapyroxad is moderately to slightly mobile
in soils, treatment methods such as sedimentation, flocculation, and
activated carbon filtration are expected to have some effect at
removing fluxapyroxad. Available studies also show that fluxapyroxad
does not degrade via photolysis, therefore where ultraviolet light is
used as a means of disinfection, enhanced degradation of fluxapyroxad
is not expected to occur. The chemical structure of fluxapyroxad does
not appear to include any moieties where oxidation due to water
chlorination could result in the formation of an obviously more-toxic
transformation product, such as an oxon. EPA possesses toxicity data on
various fluxapyroxad metabolites and degradates. The data indicate that
none of these metabolites are more toxic than parent fluxapyroxad, and
they were therefore not considered as separate entities in dietary or
drinking water risk assessments. In conclusion, based upon the
available information, EPA believes that it has adequately taken
drinking water treatment into account in addressing potential human
health risks from fluxapyroxad. EPA does not routinely require data on
the effects of water treatment processes on pesticides. Rather, in
assessing risks, EPA generally employs (as it did with fluxapyroxad)
estimates of pesticide concentrations in source (untreated) water as a
surrogate for concentrations in consumed water. This approach is
inherently conservative, and is therefore expected to be protective of
public health.

D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    Based upon review of the data supporting the petitions, petition PP
2F8058 was revised by decreasing the proposed tolerances for nongrass
animal feeds, group 18 from 0.5 to 0.30 ppm; and mint from 0.05 to 0.01
ppm. In addition, the Agency is amending the existing tolerance for
grain, cereal, group 15, by adding ``except rice'' to the commodity
definition. In lieu of the proposed tolerances for almonds and pecans,
and since these are the representative commodities for the tree nut
crop group, the Agency is establishing a tolerance for the tree nut
crop group 14-12 at 0.06 ppm.
    The Agency concluded that based on the residue data these changes
are required to support the proposed uses. The Agency analyzed the
field trial data for the respective commodities using the Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development tolerance calculation
procedures to determine the appropriate tolerances.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of fluxapyroxad,
3-(difluoromethyl)-1-methyl-N-(3',4',5'-trifluoro[1,1'-biphenyl]-2-yl)-
1H-pyrazole-4-carboxamide, as requested in the revised petitions.

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: February 14, 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.  180.666:
0
a. Revise the following commodities in the table in paragraph (a):
``Grain, cereal, group 15, (except corn, field, grain; except corn,
pop, grain; except corn, kernels plus cobs with husks removed; except
wheat)'' and ``Fruit, stone, group 12.''
0
b. Add alphabetically 21 commodities to the table in paragraph (a).
0
c. Revise paragraph (d).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  180.666  Fluxapyroxad; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almond, hulls.............................................          4.0

                              * * * * * * *
Berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G.......................          4.0
Bushberry, subgroup 13-07B................................          7.0
Caneberry, subgroup 13-07A................................          5.0

                              * * * * * * *
Fish-freshwater finfish...................................          0.01
Fish-shellfish, crustacean................................          0.01

                              * * * * * * *
Fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit,                2.0
 subgroup 13-07F..........................................

                              * * * * * * *
Fruit, stone, group 12-12.................................          3.0

                              * * * * * * *
Grain, cereal, group 15, (except corn, field, grain;                3.0
 except corn, pop, grain; except corn, kernels plus cobs
 with husks removed; except rice; except wheat............

                              * * * * * * *
Grape, raisin.............................................          5.7
Hog, meat byproducts......................................          0.01

                              * * * * * * *
Nut, tree, group 14-12....................................          0.06

                              * * * * * * *
Rice, bran................................................          8.5
Rice, grain...............................................          5.0
Rice, hulls...............................................         15.0

                              * * * * * * *
Sugarcane, cane...........................................          3.0

                              * * * * * * *
Vegetable, brassica leafy, group 5........................          4.0
Vegetable, bulb, group 3-07...............................          1.5
Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9..............................          0.50

                              * * * * * * *
Vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group 4................         30

                              * * * * * * *
Vegetable, root, except sugarbeet, subgroup 1B............          0.90

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

* * * * *
    (d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. Tolerances are established
for the combined indirect or inadvertent residues of the fungicide
fluxapyroxad, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the
commodities listed in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance
levels specified below is to be determined by measuring only
fluxapyroxad, 3-(difluoromethyl)-1-methyl-N-(3',4',5'-trifluoro[1,1'-
biphenyl]-2-yl)-1H-pyrazole-4-carboxamide in or on the commodity.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nongrass animal feeds, group18............................          0.30
Peppermint, tops..........................................          0.01
Spearmint, tops...........................................          0.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2014-04164 Filed 2-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P