[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 247 (Tuesday, December 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77674-77675]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30710]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9904-65-OA]

Notification of a Public Teleconference of the Chartered Science
Advisory Board

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces a
public teleconference of the Chartered Science Advisory Board Panel to
complete Board discussions of planned actions identified in the
agency's regulatory agenda and their supporting science and to discuss
possible future SAB advice related to EPA's strategic priorities.

DATES: The public teleconference will be held on Friday, January 21,
2014 from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Time).
    Location: The public teleconference will be conducted by telephone
only.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public wishing to
obtain information concerning the public meeting may contact Dr. Angela
Nugent, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), EPA Science Advisory Board
Staff Office (1400R), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; by telephone/voice mail
at<PHONE_NUMBER> or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>General information
about the SAB as well as any updates concerning the meeting announced
in this notice may be found on the EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/sab.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The SAB was established pursuant to the
Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization
Act (ERDDAA), codified at 42 U.S.C. 4365, to provide independent
scientific and technical advice to the Administrator on the technical
basis for Agency positions and regulations. The SAB is a Federal
Advisory Committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. 2. The SAB will comply with the provisions of
FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies. Pursuant
to FACA and EPA policy, notice is hereby given that the SAB will hold a
public meeting to discuss and deliberate on the topics below.
    As noted in the Federal Register Notice announcing a meeting of the
chartered SAB on December 4-5, 2013 (78 FR 68057-68058), the EPA has
recently underscored the need to routinely inform the SAB about
proposed and planned agency actions that have a scientific or technical
basis. Accordingly, the agency provided notice to the SAB that the
Office of Management and Budget published the ``Unified (Regulatory)
Agenda'' on the Web on July 3, 2013 (http://www.reginfo.gov/public). On
December 4-5, 2013, the Chartered SAB discussed whether it should
provide advice and comment on the adequacy of the scientific and
technical basis for EPA actions included in the Unified (Regulatory)
Agenda. The chartered SAB discussed information relating to these
planned actions at the December 4-5, 2013 meeting. On January 21, 2014,
the chartered SAB will conclude its discussion of one action, the
Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New
Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generation Units (2060-AQ91).

    The chartered SAB will also discuss draft advisory letters to the
EPA Administrator on the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) fellowship
program and possible future SAB advice related to the EPA's strategic
priorities.
    Availability of Meeting Materials: Agendas and materials in support
of this meeting will be placed on the EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/sab in advance of the meeting.
    Procedures for Providing Public Input: Public comment for
consideration by EPA's federal advisory committees and panels has a
different purpose from public comment provided to EPA program offices.
Therefore, the process for submitting comments to a federal advisory
committee is different from the process used to submit comments to an
EPA program office.
    Federal advisory committees and panels, including scientific
advisory committees, provide independent advice to EPA. Members of the
public can submit comments for a federal advisory committee to consider
as it develops advice for EPA. Input from the public to the SAB will
have the most impact if it provides specific scientific or technical
information or analysis for SAB panels to consider or if it relates to
the clarity or accuracy of the technical information. Members of the
public wishing to provide comment should contact the Designated Federal
Officer directly. Oral Statements: In general, individuals or groups
requesting an oral presentation at a teleconference will be limited to
three minutes. Each person making an oral statement should consider
providing written comments as well as their oral statement so that the
points presented orally can be expanded upon in writing. Interested
parties should contact Dr. Angela Nugent, DFO, in writing (preferably
via email) at the contact information noted above by January 14, 2014
for the teleconference, to be placed on the list of public speakers.
Written Statements: Written statements should be supplied to the DFO
via email at the contact information noted above by January 14, 2014
for the teleconference so that the information may be made available to
the Panel members for their consideration. Written statements should be
supplied in one of the following electronic formats: Adobe Acrobat PDF,
MS Word, MS PowerPoint, or Rich Text files in IBM-PC/Windows 98/2000/XP
format. It is the SAB Staff Office general policy to post written
comments on the Web page for the advisory meeting or teleconference.
Submitters are requested to provide an unsigned version of each
document because the SAB Staff Office does not publish documents with
signatures on its Web sites. Members of the public should be aware that
their personal contact information, if included in any written
comments, may be posted to the SAB Web site. Copyrighted material will
not be posted without explicit permission of the copyright holder.
    Accessibility: For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, please contact Dr. Angela Nugent at
(202) 564-2218 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To request accommodation of a
disability, please contact Dr. Nugent preferably at least ten days
prior to the teleconference to give EPA as much time as possible to
process your request.

    Dated: December 16, 2013.
Thomas H. Brennan,
 Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Staff Office.
[FR Doc. 2013-30710 Filed 12-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 200 (Friday, October 16, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 62511]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26024]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0240 FRL-9935-55-Region 9]

Approval of Implementation Plans; Arizona, Phoenix-Mesa; 2008
Ozone Standard Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP)
concerning the emission inventory, emission statements, reasonably
available control technology corrections and the vehicle inspection and
maintenance requirements for the Phoenix-Mesa 2008 eight-Hour Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) Marginal nonattainment
area. We are approving these revisions under the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Any comments on this proposal must arrive by November 16, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2015-0240, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Nancy Levin (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
withdrawn. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. If you need to include CBI as part
of your comment, please visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html
for instructions. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish
to make. For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit
http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.
    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901.
While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be
publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard
copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Levin, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-
3848<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA. This proposal addresses revisions to the
Arizona SIP concerning the emission inventory, emission statements,
reasonably available control technology corrections and the vehicle
inspection and maintenance requirements for the Phoenix-Mesa 2008
eight-Hour Ozone NAAQS Marginal nonattainment area. In the Rules and
Regulations section of this Federal Register, we are approving these
revisions in a direct final action without prior proposal because we
believe these SIP revisions are not controversial. If we receive
adverse comments, however, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule and address the comments in subsequent action based
on this proposed rule.
    We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone
interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not
receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further
information, please see the direct final action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 25, 2015.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2015-26024 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 66 (Friday, April 5, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13681-13683]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06685]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2019-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1919]

Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice lists communities where the addition or
modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths,
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or
the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard
determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and
where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS)
reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for
each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical
data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have
been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through
issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Federal
Regulations. The LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to
calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings
and the contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently
effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used
for all new policies and renewals.

DATES: These flood hazard determinations will be finalized on the dates
listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in
effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
    From the date of the second publication of notification of these
changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in
which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate
Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation reconsider the changes. The
flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day
period.

ADDRESSES: The affected communities are listed in the table below.
Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for
inspection at both the online location and the respective community map
repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current
effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online
through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for
comparison.
    Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of
the community as listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
[email protected]; or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The specific flood hazard determinations are
not described for each community in this notice. However, the online
location and local community map repository address where the flood
hazard determination information is available for inspection is
provided.
    Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must
be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed
in the table below.
    The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance
with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.,
and with 44 CFR part 65.
    The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management
measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show
evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified
for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
    These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are
required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must
change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their
floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact
stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by
other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard
determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
    The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood
hazard determination information for each community is available for
inspection at both the online location and the respective community map
repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current
effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online
through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for
comparison.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Chief executive                         Online location of
        State and county           Location and case       officer of         Community map        letter of map       Date of modification   Community
                                          No.               community          repository             revision                                   No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona:
    Cochise.....................  City of Sierra       The Honorable Rick  Community           https://msc.fema.gov/  Jun. 12, 2019........       040017
                                   Vista (18-09-        Mueller, Mayor,     Development         portal/advanceSearch.
                                   1540P).              City of Sierra      Department, 1011
                                                        Vista, 1011 North   North Coronado
                                                        Coronado Drive,     Drive, Sierra
                                                        Sierra Vista, AZ    Vista, AZ 85635.
                                                        85635.
    Maricopa....................  City of Peoria (18-  The Honorable       City Hall, 8401     https://msc.fema.gov/  Jun. 21, 2019........       040050
                                   09-2141P).           Cathy Carlat,       West Monroe         portal/advanceSearch.
                                                        Mayor, City of      Street, Peoria,
                                                        Peoria, 8401 West   AZ 85345.
                                                        Monroe Street,
                                                        Peoria, AZ 85345.
    Mohave......................  City of Bullhead     The Honorable Tom   Public Works        https://msc.fema.gov/  Jul. 2, 2019.........       040125
                                   City (18-09-1188P).  Brady, Mayor,       Department, 2355    portal/advanceSearch.
                                                        City of Bullhead    Trane Road,
                                                        City, 2355 Trane    Bullhead City, AZ
                                                        Road, Bullhead      86442.
                                                        City, AZ 86442.
California:
    San Diego...................  City of San Diego    The Honorable       Development         https://msc.fema.gov/  Jun. 19, 2019........       060295
                                   (18-09-1129P).       Kevin L.            Services            portal/advanceSearch.
                                                        Faulconer, Mayor,   Department, 1222
                                                        City of San         1st Avenue,
                                                        Diego, 202 C        MS301, San Diego,
                                                        Street, 11th        CA 92101.
                                                        Floor, San Diego,
                                                        CA 92101.
    Solano......................  City of Vacaville    The Honorable Ron   Planning and        https://msc.fema.gov/  Jul. 1, 2019.........       060373
                                   (18-09-0833P).       Rowlett, Mayor,     Engineering, 650    portal/advanceSearch.
                                                        City of             Merchant Street,
                                                        Vacaville, 650      Vacaville, CA
                                                        Merchant Street,    95688.
                                                        Vacaville, CA
                                                        95688.
Florida:
    Bay.........................  City of Panama City  The Honorable Mike  City Hall, 110      https://msc.fema.gov/  Jun. 26, 2019........       120013
                                   Beach (18-04-        Thomas, Mayor,      South Arnold        portal/advanceSearch.
                                   6432P).              City of Panama      Road, Panama City
                                                        City Beach, City    Beach, FL 32413.
                                                        Hall, 110 South
                                                        Arnold Road,
                                                        Panama City
                                                        Beach, FL 32413.
    Miami-Dade..................  City of Miami (19-   The Honorable       Emergency           https://msc.fema.gov/  Jul. 5, 2019.........       120650
                                   04-0054P).           Tomas P. Regaldo,   Management          portal/advanceSearch.
                                                        Mayor, City of      Department, 444
                                                        Miami, 3500 Pan     Southwest 2nd
                                                        American Drive,     Avenue, 10th
                                                        Miami, FL 33133.    Floor, Miami, FL
                                                                            33130.
Hawaii: Hawaii..................  Hawaii County (18-   The Honorable       Hawaii County       https://msc.fema.gov/  Jun. 28, 2019........       155166
                                   09-2287P).           Harry Kim, Mayor,   Department of       portal/
                                                        County of Hawaii,   Public Works,       advanceSearch..
                                                        25 Aupuni Street,   Engineering
                                                        Suite 2603, Hilo,   Division, 101
                                                        HI 96720.           Pauahi Street,
                                                                            Suite 7, Hilo, HI
                                                                            96720.
Illinois:
    Kane........................  Village of           The Honorable       Village Hall, 234   https://msc.fema.gov/  Jun. 20, 2019........       170327
                                   Hampshire (18-05-    Jeffrey             South State         portal/advanceSearch.
                                   5585P).              Magnussen,          Street,
                                                        Village             Hampshire, IL
                                                        President,          60140.
                                                        Village of
                                                        Hampshire, P.O.
                                                        Box 457,
                                                        Hampshire, IL
                                                        60140.
    Will........................  Village of Homer     The Honorable       Village Hall,       https://msc.fema.gov/  Jul. 5, 2019.........       171080
                                   Glen                 George Yukich,      14240 West 151st    portal/advanceSearch.
                                   (18[dash]05[dash]6   Mayor, Village of   Street, Homer
                                   035P).               Homer Glen, 14240   Glen, IL 60491.
                                                        West 151st
                                                        Street, Homer
                                                        Glen, IL 60491.
Indiana: Allen..................  City of Fort Wayne   The Honorable Tom   Department of       https://msc.fema.gov/  Jun. 26, 2019........       180003
                                   (18-05-6504P).       Henry, Mayor,       Planning            portal/advanceSearch.
                                                        City of Fort        Services, 200
                                                        Wayne, Citizens     East Berry
                                                        Square, 200 East    Street, Suite
                                                        Berry Street,       150, Fort Wayne,
                                                        Suite 420, Fort     IN 46802.
                                                        Wayne, IN 46802.
Iowa: Black Hawk................  City of Waterloo     The Honorable       City Hall, 715      https://msc.fema.gov/  Jul. 1, 2019.........       190025
                                   (18-07-1103P).       Quentin M. Hart,    Mulberry Street,    portal/advanceSearch.
                                                        Mayor, City of      Waterloo, IA
                                                        Waterloo, 715       50703.
                                                        Mulberry Street,
                                                        Waterloo, IA
                                                        50703.
Kansas:
    Johnson.....................  City of Shawnee (18- The Honorable       City Hall, 11110    https://msc.fema.gov/  Jul. 3, 2019.........       200177
                                   07-1853P..           Michelle Distler,   Johnson Drive,      portal/advanceSearch.
                                                        Mayor, City of      Shawnee, KS 66203.
                                                        Shawnee, Shawnee
                                                        City Hall, 11110
                                                        Johnson Drive,
                                                        Shawnee, KS 66203.
    Johnson.....................  City of Shawnee (18- The Honorable       City Hall, 11110    https://msc.fema.gov/  Jun. 26, 2019........       200177
                                   07-2004P).           Michelle Distler,   Johnson Drive,      portal/advanceSearch.
                                                        Mayor, City of      Shawnee, KS 66203.
                                                        Shawnee, Shawnee
                                                        City Hall, 11110
                                                        Johnson Drive,
                                                        Shawnee, KS 66203.

    Clay........................  City of Moorhead     The Honorable Del   City Hall, 500      https://msc.fema.gov/  May 17, 2019.........       275244
                                   (18-05-1711P).       Rae Williams,       Center Avenue,      portal/advanceSearch.
                                                        Mayor, City of      Moorhead, MN
                                                        Moorhead, City      56561.
                                                        Hall, 500 Center
                                                        Avenue, Moorhead,
                                                        MN 56561.
    Clay........................  Unincorporated       The Honorable       Clay County         https://msc.fema.gov/  May 17, 2019.........       275235
                                   Areas of Clay        Jenny Mongeau,      Courthouse, 8107    portal/advanceSearch.
                                   County (18-05-       Chair, Clay         11th Street,
                                   1711P).              County Board of     Moorhead, MN
                                                        Commissioners       56560.
                                                        Clay County
                                                        Courthouse, 807
                                                        11th Street,
                                                        North Commission
                                                        Room, 3rd Floor
                                                        Moorhead, MN
                                                        56560.
Nevada: Clark...................  City of North Las    The Honorable John  Public Works        https://msc.fema.gov/  Jul. 3, 2019.........       320007
                                   Vegas (18-09-        J. Lee, Mayor,      Department, 2250    portal/advanceSearch.
                                   2027P).              City of North Las   Las Vegas
                                                        Vegas, 2250 Las     Boulevard North,
                                                        Vegas Boulevard     Suite 200, North
                                                        North, North Las    Las Vegas, NV
                                                        Vegas, NV 89030.    89030.
Ohio: Lorain....................  City of Avon Lake    The Honorable Greg  City Hall, 150      https://msc.fema.gov/  Jun. 26, 2019........       390602
                                   (18-05-3982P).       Zilka, Mayor,       Avon Belden Road,   portal/advanceSearch.
                                                        City of Avon        Avon Lake, OH
                                                        Lake, City Hall,    44012.
                                                        150 Avon Belden
                                                        Road, Avon Lake,
                                                        OH 44012.
Washington:
    Island......................  Unincorporated       Ms. Jill Johnson,   Island County       https://msc.fema.gov/  Jun. 27, 2019........       530312
                                   Areas of Island      Chair, Island       Courthouse Annex,   portal/advanceSearch.
                                   County (18-10-       County              1 Northeast 6th
                                   1156P).              Commissioners,      Street,
                                                        Administration      Coupeville, WA
                                                        Building, 1         98239.
                                                        Northeast 7th
                                                        Street, Room 214,
                                                        Coupeville, WA
                                                        98239.
    Pierce......................  City of Puyallup     The Honorable John  City Hall, 333      https://msc.fema.gov/  Jun. 28, 2019........       530144
                                   (19-10-0145P).       Palmer, Mayor,      South Meridian,     portal/advanceSearch.
                                                        City of Puyallup,   Puyallup, WA
                                                        Puyallup City       98371.
                                                        Hall, 333 South
                                                        Meridian,
                                                        Puyallup, WA
                                                        98371.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2019-06685 Filed 4-4-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Please extend the comment period for topics relating to electronic cigarettes to at least 180 days instead of the currently proposed 75. Try to pursue independent scientific input on the use of these devices and liquids instead of concerning yourself with the profit margins, corporate motivations, and lobbyist input of the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 65 (Friday, April 3, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19051-19052]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07025]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-410, OMB Control No. 3235-0466]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Rule 103

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in Rule 103 of Regulation M (17
CFR 242.103), under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a
et seq.). The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of
information to the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for
extension and approval.
    Rule 103--Nasdaq Passive Market Making--permits passive market-
making in Nasdaq securities during a distribution. A distribution
participant that seeks use of this exception would be required to
disclose to third parties its intention to engage in passive market
making.
    There are approximately 307 respondents per year that require an
aggregate total of 307 hours to comply with this rule. Each respondent
makes an estimated 1 annual response. Each response takes approximately
1 hour to complete. Thus, the total compliance burden per year is 307
burden hours. The total estimated internal labor cost of compliance for
the respondents is approximately $21,490.00 per year, resulting in an
estimated internal labor cost of compliance per response of
approximately $70.00 (i.e., $21,490.00/307 responses).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: David Bottom, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o
Cynthia Roscoe, 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: March 31, 2020.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-07025 Filed 4-2-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 121 (Friday, June 22, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29017-29023]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13456]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0156; FRL-9976-21]

Tolfenpyrad; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

DATES: This regulation is effective June 22, 2018. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before August 21, 2018,
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-2017-0156, 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), West William Jefferson Clinton 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<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Goodis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address: [email protected].

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-2017-0156 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
August 21, 2018. 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-2017-0156, 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.html.
    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 June 8, 2017 (82 FR 26641) (FRL-9961-
14), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of pesticide petitions (PP
7F8544 and PP 7F8543) by Nichino America, Inc., 4550 New Linden Hill
Road, Suite 501, Wilmington, DE 19808-2951. The petitions requested
that 40 CFR 180.675 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues
of the insecticide tolfenpyrad, 4-chloro-3-ethyl-1-methyl-N-[4-(p-
tolyloxy)benzyl]pyrazole-5-carboxamide, in or on Brassica head and stem
vegetable group (crop group 5-16) at 5.0 parts per million (ppm) (PP
7F8544); Brassica leafy greens subgroup (4-16B) at 40 ppm (PP 7F8544);
Vegetables, cucurbit, group 9 at 0.7 ppm (PP 7F8544); Vegetables,
fruiting, group 8-10 at 0.7 ppm (PP 7F8544); Fruit, pome, group 11-10
at 0.7 ppm (PP 7F8544); and Apple, wet pomace at 2.5 ppm (PP 7F8544).
The petitions also requested that established tolerances be amended for
residues of tolfenpyrad in or on Fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 0.9 ppm
(PP 7F8544; PP 7F8543); Citrus, dried pulp at 3.0 ppm (PP 7F8544; PP
7F8543); and Citrus, oil at 28.0 ppm (PP 7F8544; PP 7F8543). That
document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Nichino
America, Inc., the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to
the notices of filing. Consistent with the authority in section
408(d)(4)(A)(i), EPA is establishing tolerances that vary from what the
petitioner sought. The reasons for these changes are explained 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 tolfenpyrad including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with tolfenpyrad 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.
    A variety of toxic effects were noted in the toxicology database
for tolfenpyrad. However, the most consistent finding across species
and studies was decreased body weight and/or body weight gain, which
were observed in adults of all species (rat, mice, rabbit, and dog) in
the majority of the subchronic oral and dermal toxicity studies, and
all chronic toxicity studies.
    The rat is the species most sensitive to body weight changes, with
effects observed at much lower doses than in other species. In rats,
significant decreases in body weight and body weight gain were observed
in

subchronic oral and acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies.
Decreases in body weight and body weight gain were also seen in chronic
rat studies but at lower doses than observed in the other rat studies.
Although seen at lower doses, the body weight decrements noted in the
chronic study were not as pronounced as seen after subchronic exposure
or in the neurotoxicity studies. Decreases in body weight and body
weight gain were also observed in reproduction, developmental toxicity,
and developmental immunotoxicity studies at doses comparable to the
chronic study. Significant decreases in body weight and body weight
gain were seen in both mice and dogs after subchronic exposure; these
effects were also noted in rabbits in a developmental toxicity study.
Chronic exposure resulted in body weight and body weight gain decreases
in mice and dogs at lower doses for longer duration studies.
    The body weight changes observed in the database were most often
seen in the presence of decreased food consumption and in some studies,
additional toxicity including liver/kidney effects and clinical signs.
Increased liver and kidney weights, liver and kidney hypertrophy,
hyaline droplets in the kidney, and color change in the kidney were
seen after subchronic exposure in rats. Chronic exposure resulted in
similar effects along with color changes in the liver and liver
histopathology at slightly lower doses than in the subchronic studies.
Other effects noted in rats were effects on the harderian gland and
lymph nodes. In dogs, both changes in liver and kidney histopathology,
along with testicular atrophy and clinical signs (emaciation, decreased
movement, and staggering gait) were seen in short-term studies. Long-
term exposure resulted in histopathological changes in the liver, along
with increased liver enzymes. No treatment-related effects were noted
in the liver or kidney in mice. However, rough coats, hunched posture,
ataxia, and hypoactivity were seen in subchronic studies.
    Moribundity and/or mortality were noted in at least one study in
all tested species at >=3 milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day).
Moribundity and mortality were noted in two dams in a rat reproduction
study. Mortality was also noted in one dam in a rabbit developmental
toxicity study, as well as in two rats from an inhalation toxicity
study (range-finding only). In mice and dogs, mortality was observed in
both subchronic and chronic toxicity studies. In all cases, these
effects were observed only after repeat-dose exposures, and the current
points of departure (PODs) for the relevant exposure durations are
protective of the observed mortality.
    There is no evidence of increased quantitative or qualitative
susceptibility in the guideline rat and rabbit developmental studies,
or the rat reproduction study. Although several adverse effects were
noted in young animals in these studies, the effects were observed in
the presence of significant maternal toxicity (significant body weight
changes and/or moribundity/mortality). In a non-guideline rat
developmental immunotoxicity (DIT) study, decreased survival, body
weight, body weight gain, increased blackish abdominal cavity, and dark
green abnormal intestinal contents were observed in offspring animals
at 3 mg/kg/day. At the same dose, decreased body weight (up to 10%),
body weight gain (up to 36%) and food consumption were seen in maternal
animals. This is consistent with the other developmental toxicity
studies in the database, in which offspring toxicity is observed at the
same dose as significant maternal toxicity. There was no evidence of
immunotoxicity observed in the study.
    No evidence of neurotoxicity was observed in acute and subchronic
neurotoxicity studies for tolfenpyrad. Although hunched posture,
ataxia, and hypoactivity were seen in mice in a 28-day toxicity study,
these effects were not seen in a 90-day study or after chronic
exposure. In dogs, decreased spontaneous movement and staggering gait
were observed after 13 weeks. In rats, decreased motor activity and
prone position (lying face down) prior to death were noted in a
reproduction study. Overall, the effects noted in the database were
agonal effects mainly seen at high doses, not associated with
neuropathology, and not noted in long-term studies. The effects
observed are consistent with the mode of action for tolfenpyrad
(mitochondrial inhibitor) and are not considered evidence of
neurotoxicity.
    No evidence of carcinogenicity was observed in cancer studies with
mice and rats. Therefore, in accordance with EPA's Final Guidelines for
Carcinogen Risk Assessment (March 2005), tolfenpyrad is classified as
``not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.'' Specific information on
the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by
tolfenpyrad 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
``Tolfenpyrad--Aggregate Human Health Risk Assessment of Proposed New
Uses on Multiple Commodities'' at pages 11-15 in docket ID number EPA-
HQ-OPP-2017-0156.

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://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for tolfenpyrad used for
human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.

                Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Tolfenpyrad for Use in
                                          Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Point of departure
        Exposure/scenario            and uncertainty/     RfD, PAD, LOC for     Study and toxicological effects
                                      safety factors       risk assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (General population  NOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day  Acute RfD = 0.1 mg/  Acute Neurotoxicity Study in rats.
 including infants and children).  UFA = 10X...........   kg/day.             LOAEL = 20 mg/kg/day based on
                                   UFH = 10X...........  aPAD = 0.1 mg/kg/     decreased bodyweight, bodyweight
                                   FQPA SF = 1X........   day..                gain and food consumption.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary (All populations)  NOAEL= 0.6 mg/kg/day  Chronic RfD = 0.006  Combined Chronic/Carcinogenicity
                                   UFA = 10X...........   mg/kg/day.           Study in rats.
                                   UFH = 10X...........  cPAD = 0.006 mg/kg/  LOAEL = 1.5 mg/kg/day based on
                                   FQPA SF = 1X........   day..                decreased bodyweight, bodyweight
                                                                               gain, and food consumption of
                                                                               females, gross changes in the
                                                                               harderian glands of males, and
                                                                               histopathological changes in the
                                                                               liver, kidney and mesenteric
                                                                               lymph nodes of females and the
                                                                               kidney of males.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation)     Classification: ``Not likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans'' based on the
                                            absence of significant tumor increases in two adequate rodent
                                                              carcinogenicity studies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level
  of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. 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 tolfenpyrad, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing tolfenpyrad tolerances in 40 CFR
180.675. EPA assessed dietary exposures from tolfenpyrad 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 tolfenpyrad. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food
consumption information from the 2003-2008 U.S. Department of
Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in
food, EPA assumes 100 percent crop treatment (PCT) and tolerance-level
residues with minor refinements including a factor to account for the
reduction in residues when wrapper leaves are removed from head lettuce
and cabbage, as well as empirical processing factors for tomato juice,
paste, and puree, cottonseed oil, citrus juice, and grape juice (which
was translated broadly to other juices for which empirical data were
not available).
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the 2003-2008 U.S.
Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to
residue levels in food, EPA assumes 100 PCT and average residue levels
from crop field trials as well as minor refinements listed above for
acute exposure. Although partially refined, the chronic exposure
estimates still retain a high level of conservatism due to the source
and scope of the refinements, and are likely to overestimate the actual
chronic dietary risk.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that tolfenpyrad does not pose a cancer risk to humans.
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing
cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residues and percent crop treated. Although EPA did
not use any percent crop treated estimates for this action, the Agency
relied on average residue 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 tolfenpyrad in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of tolfenpyrad. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.
    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
tolfenpyrad for acute exposures are estimated to be 26.9 parts per
billion (ppb) for surface water and 11.0 ppb for ground water, for
chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 12.2
ppb for surface water and 11.0 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 26.9 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 12.2 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). Tolfenpyrad is not
registered for any specific use patterns that would result in
residential exposure.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found tolfenpyrad to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and tolfenpyrad does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
tolfenpyrad 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 website at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

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. Although evidence is noted
for qualitative susceptibility in the young in the developmental
immunotoxicity study (DIT) in rats, there is low concern and there are
no residual uncertainties regarding increased quantitative or
qualitative prenatal and/or postnatal susceptibility for tolfenpyrad.
When the DIT study is considered along with the reproduction study, the
offspring toxicity in the DIT study was observed at the same dose as
comparable maternal toxicity (moribundity/mortality) in the
reproduction study. Therefore, EPA does not consider the isolated
incident in the DIT a true indicator of qualitative susceptibility.
Additionally, the effects observed in the DIT study are well-
characterized, a clear NOAEL was identified, and the endpoints chosen
for risk assessment are protective of potential offspring effects.
    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 tolfenpyrad is complete.
    ii. There is no indication that tolfenpyrad is a neurotoxic
chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study
or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. Although there is some evidence that tolfenpyrad may result in
increased susceptibility, the concern for developmental or reproductive
effects is low for the reasons contained in Unit III.D.2., and thus, a
10X FQPA safety factor is not necessary to protect infants and
children.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100% CT and tolerance-level residues for the acute dietary exposure
and average residue levels from crop field trials for the chronic
dietary exposure. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the
ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to
tolfenpyrad in drinking water. These assessments will not underestimate
the exposure and risks posed by tolfenpyrad.

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 margin of exposure (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 tolfenpyrad will occupy 54% of the aPAD for children 1-2 years of
age, 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
tolfenpyrad from food and water will utilize 68% of the cPAD for
children 1-2 years of age, the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. There are no residential uses for tolfenpyrad.
    3. Short- and Intermediate-term risk. Short- and intermediated-term
aggregate exposures take into account short- and intermediate-term
residential exposures plus chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background exposure level). Short- and
intermediate-term adverse effects were identified; however, tolfenpyrad
is not registered for any use patterns that would result in short- or
intermediate-term residential exposures. Short- and intermediate-term
risks are assessed based on short- and intermediate-term residential
exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there are no short- or
intermediate-term residential exposures 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 short- and
intermediate-term risk), no further assessment of short- and
intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic
dietary risk assessment for evaluating short- and intermediate-term
risk for tolfenpyrad.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, tolfenpyrad 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 tolfenpyrad residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodologies, utilizing high-performance
liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometric detection (LC/MS/
MS), are available for enforcement of tolfenpyrad residue tolerances
in/on plant commodities (Morse Laboratories Analytical Method #Meth-
183, Revision #2). For livestock, a method described in PTRL West Study
No. 1841W is available. The livestock method adequately determines
residues of tolfenpyrad and its metabolites, PT-CA,

OH-PT-CA, and PCA in milk, bovine meat, kidney, liver and fat. Residues
are determined by LC/MS/MS analysis. These methods are adequate for
enforcement and 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 protected].

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 any MRLs for tolfenpyrad in
commodities in this action.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    EPA's tolerance levels are expressed to provide sufficient
precision for enforcement purposes, and this may include the addition
of trailing zeros (such as 0.30 ppm rather than 0.3 ppm). This is done
to avoid the situation where rounding of an observed violative residue
to the level of precision of the tolerance expression would result in a
residue considered non-violative (such as 0.34 ppm being rounded to 0.3
ppm). EPA added additional zeros for fruiting vegetables group 8-10 and
cucurbit vegetables group 9. EPA is establishing tolerances for
residues in or on fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 0.80 ppm instead of 0.9
ppm; citrus, oil at 30 ppm instead of 28.0 ppm; and citrus, dried pulp
at 4.0 ppm instead of 3.0 ppm, based on the previously reviewed orange
processing study, and the newly submitted lemon field trial residues as
the input dataset for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) MRL calculation procedure. In addition, the
tolerances in fruits, pome, group 11-10 and apple wet pomace are based
on the petitioner's revision of the proposed maximum annual use rate on
pome fruits, from 0.42 lb ai per acre (lb ai/A) to 0.57 lb ai/A.

D. International Trade Considerations

    In this rule, EPA is reducing the existing tolerances for citrus
commodities as follows: Fruit, citrus, group 10-10 from 1.5 ppm to 0.80
ppm; citrus, dried pulp from 8.0 ppm to 4.0 ppm; and citrus, oil from
70 ppm to 30 ppm. The Agency is reducing these tolerances because these
reductions requested by the petitioner are supported by available data.
This reduction in tolerance levels is not discriminatory; the same food
safety standard contained in the FFDCA applies equally to domestically
produced and imported foods.
    In accordance with the World Trade Organization's (WTO) Sanitary
and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) Agreement, EPA will notify the WTO of
its tolerance revision. In addition, the SPS Agreement requires that
Members provide a ``reasonable interval'' between the publication of a
regulation subject to the Agreement and its entry into force in order
to allow time for producers in exporting Member countries to adapt to
the new requirement. At this time, EPA is establishing an expiration
date for the existing tolerances to allow those tolerances remain in
effect for a period of six months after the effective date of this
final rule, in order to address this requirement. Prior to the
expiration date, residues of tolfenpyrad up to the existing tolerance
levels will be permitted; after the expiration date, residues will need
to comply with the reduced tolerance levels.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of tolfenpyrad,
4-chloro-3-ethyl-1-methyl-N-[4-(p-tolyloxy)benzyl]pyrazole-5-
carboxamide, in or on Vegetable, Brassica, head and stem, group 5-16 at
5.0 parts per million (ppm); Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B at
40 ppm; Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 at 0.70 ppm; Vegetable, fruiting,
group 8-10 at 0.70 ppm; Fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 1.0 ppm; and Apple,
wet pomace at 3.0 ppm. Furthermore, established tolerances are amended
for residues of tolfenpyrad in or on Fruit, citrus, group 10-10 from
1.5 ppm to 0.80 ppm; Citrus, dried pulp from 8.0 ppm to 4.0 ppm; and
Citrus, oil from 70 ppm to 30 ppm. Finally, the tolerances for
``Vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10'' at 0.70 ppm and ``Watermelon'' at
0.70 ppm in paragraph (b), which cover residues resulting from the
section 18 emergency exemptions, are removed as it is superseded by the
tolerances established for group 9 in this action.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action 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 action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action 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); Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); or Executive Order 13771,
entitled ``Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs'' (82
FR 9339, February 3, 2017). This action 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 action 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 action. In addition, this action does not
impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as
described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (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 (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: June 8, 2018.
Michael Goodis,
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.  180.675:
0
a. Revise the table in paragraph (a)(1); and
0
b. Remove the entries for ``Vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10'' and
``Watermelon'' in the table in paragraph (b).
    The revision reads as follows:

Sec.  180.675  Tolfenpyrad; tolerance for residues.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Parts per
                          Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almond hulls................................................         6.0
Apple, wet pomace...........................................         3.0
Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B......................          40
Citrus, dried pulp 1........................................         8.0
Citrus, dried pulp..........................................         4.0
Citrus, oil 1...............................................        70.0
Citrus, oil.................................................          30
Cotton, gin byproducts......................................        15.0
Cotton, undelinted seed.....................................        0.70
Fruit, citrus, group 10-10 1................................         1.5
Fruit, citrus, group 10-10..................................        0.80
Fruit, pome, group 11-10....................................         1.0
Fruit, stone, group 12-12...................................         2.0
Grape.......................................................         2.0
Grape, raisin...............................................         6.0
Nuts, tree, group 14-12.....................................        0.05
Persimmon...................................................         2.0
Plum, prune.................................................         3.0
Pomegranate.................................................         2.0
Potato......................................................        0.01
Tea.........................................................        30.0
Vegetable, Brassica, head and stem, group 5-16..............         5.0
Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9................................        0.70
Vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10.............................        0.70
Vegetable, leafy, except Brassica, group 4..................        30.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 This tolerance expires on December 24, 2018.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-13456 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 50 (Tuesday, March 15, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13788-13789]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05772]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP15-138-000]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review of the Atlantic Sunrise Expansion Project

    On March 31, 2015, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC
(Transco) a subsidiary of Williams Partners L.P. (Williams), filed an
application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) in Docket No. CP15-138-000 requesting authorization
pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and part 157 of
the Commission's regulations to construct, operate, and maintain
expansions of its existing interstate natural gas pipeline system in
Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina.
The proposed project, referred to as the Atlantic Sunrise Expansion
Project (Project), would provide 1,700,000 dekatherms per day of
natural gas transportation service from various receipt points in
Pennsylvania to various delivery points along Transco's existing
interstate pipeline system.
    FERC issued its Notice of Application for the Project on April 8,
2015. Among other things, the notice alerted other agencies issuing
federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary
reviews and to reach a final decision on the request for a federal
authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission
staff's final environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Project.
This notice identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for completion
of the final EIS for the Project.

Schedule for Environmental Review

Issuance of Notice of Availability of the final EIS October 21, 2016
90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline January 19, 2017

    If a schedule change becomes necessary, an additional notice will
be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the
Project's progress.

Project Description

    The Project includes about 197.7 miles of pipeline composed of the
following facilities:
     183.7 miles of new 30- and 42-inch-diameter greenfield \1\
natural gas pipeline;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A ``greenfield'' pipeline crosses land previously untouched
by natural gas infrastructure rather than using existing rights-of-
way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     11.5 miles of new 36- and 42-inch-diamater pipeline
looping; \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Looping'' is the practice of installing a pipeline in
parallel to another pipeline to increase the capacity along an
existing stretch of right-of-way, often beyond what can be achieved
by one pipeline or pipeline expansion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     2.5 miles of 30-inch-diameter replacements; and
     associated equipment and facilities.
    The Project's aboveground facilities consist of two new compressor
stations; additional compression and related modifications to three
existing compressor stations; two new meter stations and three new
regulator stations; and minor modifications at existing aboveground
facilities at various locations to allow for bi-directional flow and
the installation of supplemental odorization, odor detection, and/or
odor masking/deodorization equipment.

Background

    On April 4, 2014, the Commission staff granted Transco's request to
use the FERC's pre-filing environmental review process and assigned the
Project Docket No. PF14-8-000. On July 18, 2014, the Commission issued
a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the
Planned Atlantic Sunrise Expansion Project, Request for Comments on
Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping Meetings (NOI). The
NOI was sent to federal, state, and local government representatives
and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest
groups; Native American Tribes; affected property owners; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. Major issues
raised

during scoping include potential impacts on forested areas,
groundwater, and threatened and endangered species; socioeconomic
impacts; land use and recreational impacts; air quality; safety;
potential cumulative impacts; and potential alternative routes. The
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is a cooperating agency in the preparation
of the EIS.
    Additional information about the Project may be obtained by
contacting the Environmental Project Manager, Joanne Wachholder, by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: March 9, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-05772 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P