this petition.  Using the Agency’s most recent guidance on constructing reasonably balanced
livestock diets, MDB for livestock to cyprodinil was recalculated to be 0.88 ppm for beef cattle,
0.89 ppm for dairy cattle, and 0.005 ppm for swine and poultry.  The lower MDB levels for
poultry and swine resulted from removing cowpeas from their diet.  Although cowpeas are
covered by the existing 0.6 ppm tolerance for dry beans, they were not included in the poultry
and swine diets because the use directions for beans on cyprodinil labels specifically exclude
applications to cowpeas.  As the proposed uses will not increase the dietary exposure of livestock
to cyprodinil residues, reassessment of animal tolerances is not required for this petition.  The
current 0.02 ppm tolerances for meat byproducts of cattle, goats, horses, and sheep are adequate.
Although the addition of a tolerance on canola seed will result in the potential dietary exposure
of poultry to cyprodinil residues, HED has determined that a poultry feeding study is not
required for the current petition as the potential dietary exposure of poultry is extremely low.
4.1.7
Residues in Processed Foods
Syngenta has submitted processing studies on canola in support of the proposed use for
cyprodinil (WDG) on canola grown in Canada.  In two field trials conducted in Canada in Zones
14 during 2007, a WDG formulation containing 37.5% cyprodinil was applied to canola as a
single broadcast foliar application at rates of 1120-1127 g ai/ha (3x rate; 1.0 lb ai/A).
Applications were made using ground equipment in volumes of ~200 L/ha and included the use
of a crop oil concentrate at 1.0% v/v.  Single bulk control and treated samples of canola seed
were harvested from each test at 38 or 52 DAT.  The canola seed were then processed into meal
and refined oil using simulated commercial practices.  Canola seed, meal, and oil samples were

Page 18 of 36
stored at ”-10°C for up to 191 days prior to analysis.  Residues were ND in samples of canola
seed (<0.006 ppm), meal (<0.006 ppm) and refined oil (<0.003 ppm) from both field trials.
Therefore, processing factors could not be calculated.  The theoretical processing factors for
canola are 1.9x for meal and 3.0x for refined oil.  Provided that adequate supported storage
stability data are submitted for canola seed, meal and oil, the canola processing studies are
adequate.  The data indicate that quantifiable residues of cyprodinil are unlikely to occur in
canola meal and refined oil following an application at up 3x the proposed maximum use rate;
therefore, separate tolerances are not required for canola meal and refined oil.
4.2
Drinking Water Profile
4.2.1
Environmental Fate and Transport
The environmental fate data base for cyprodinil is considered substantially complete.
Cyprodinil has a relatively low solubility in water (13 ppm at pH 7).  Based on its octanol/ water
partition coefficient, it is likely to partition with organic tissues and other organic media.  It is
alkaline in water (pH 9.5 and pKa = 4.44).  It is not likely to volatilize substantially, with a vapor
pressure of 3.80x10
-6
mmHg and a Henry’s Law constant of 7.04x10
-8
Atm-m /mol at 20°C.
3
Cyprodinil binds to sediment and particulate. It appears to be a persistent compound under most
conditions, except aerobic soil metabolism, as demonstrated in laboratory studies.  Cyprodinil
appears to bind strongly to particulate and sediment, showing relatively low soil mobility (K
OC
range 1550 to 2030); its potential for groundwater contamination appears to be low.  However,
due to its high persistence under aquatic conditions, aquifers that lie below areas that have low
organic content and coarse textured soils or shallow leaky aquifers could be prone to
contamination.  Even though buffer zones can ameliorate moderately the level of spray drift, the
potential for runoff still exists for long periods of time.  Cyprodinil’s high affinity to sorb to soil
and particulate suggests the potential for runoff in eroded particles.  This stability and binding to
particulate and organic matter (aerobic and anaerobic conditions) suggests that cyprodinil
residues in sediments could contribute to a possible resuspension of the compound through
mixing and mass balance for an extended period.  Degradates of cyprodinil include 4-
cyclopropyl-6-methyl-2-amine-pyrimidine, CGA-275535 (slightly mobile), CGA-321915
(mobile to moderately mobile), and CGA-249287 (moderately mobile) (the degradate identified
of concern in this assessment; 11.7% at 28 days in the aerobic soil metabolism study, and 14.2%
in the aerobic aquatic metabolism study).  The water residues of concern as determined by
MARC are the parent and CGA 249287 (4-cyclopropyl-6-methylpyrimidin-2-amine) (D292557,
6/8/03).
4.2.2
Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations
Drinking water residues were incorporated directly into the chronic dietary analysis
(“water, direct, all sources” and “water, indirect, all sources”) and were provided by EFED
(D342973, J Melendez 5/2/08).  EFED generated the surface water estimates using the linked
PRZM and EXAMS tier 2 aquatic models.  Ground water estimates were calculated using the
Tier 1 Screening Concentration in Ground Water model.   Estimated Drinking Water

Page 19 of 36
Concentrations (EDWCs) for cyprodinil and its metabolite CGA-249287 were derived based on
a maximum application rate of 0.469 lb a.i./A (applied 3 times/season) on grapes assuming
minimum intervals between application.   The concentrations have been adjusted with the
Percent Crop Area (PCA) of 0.87 for a national assessment.  Combined surface water EDWCs
for cyprodinil and the CGA-249287 metabolite used in the exposure assessment, are provided in
Table 9.
Table 9.  EDWCs for the Cyprodinil Human Health Risk Assessment
Drinking Water Source
Peak ( g/L)
Annual Mean ( g/L)
Surface Water
35 20
Ground Water
0.11 0.11
4.3
Dietary and Drinking Water Exposure and Risk
Screening-level acute and chronic dietary and drinking water exposure and risk
assessment was conducted using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model with the Food
Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID™).  Dietary risk assessment incorporates both
exposure and toxicity of a given pesticide.  For acute and chronic dietary assessments, the risk is
expressed as a percentage of a maximum acceptable dose (i.e., the dose which HED has
concluded will result in no unreasonable adverse health effects).  This dose is referred to as the
population adjusted dose (PAD).  The PAD is equivalent to the reference dose (RfD) divided by
the additional Safety Factor, if applied. For acute and non-cancer chronic exposures, HED is
concerned when estimated dietary risk exceeds 100% of the PAD.
4.3.1  Acute Dietary and Drinking Water Analysis
A screening level acute dietary exposure analysis was performed for the population
subgroup females 13-49 only.  No acute endpoint was identified for the remaining population
subgroups.  Tolerance level residues and 100 crop treated assumptions were used.  DEEM
default and empirical processing factors were used to modify the tolerance values.  The acute
analysis incorporated the 1 in 10 year peak surface drinking water estimate from application of
cyprodinil to grapes.  The resulting 95th percentile acute exposure estimate for females 13-49
years old is not of concern to HED (4% acute population adjusted dose (aPAD)).
Table 10:  Summary of Acute Dietary Exposure and Risk for Cyprodinil
Acute (95th Percentile)
Population Subgroup
aPAD (mg/kg/day)
Exposure (mg/kg/day)
%aPAD
Females 13-49 years old
1.5
0.0550
4
4.3.2  Chronic Dietary and Drinking Water Analysis
A conservative chronic dietary exposure analysis was performed for the general U.S.
population and various population subgroups.  Tolerance level residues and 100 crop treated

Page 20 of 36
assumptions were used.  DEEM default and empirical processing factors were used to modify the
tolerance values.  The chronic analysis incorporated the 10 year average surface drinking water
estimate from application of cyprodinil to grapes.  Chronic dietary risk estimates are not of
concern for general population or other population subgroups.  The subgroup with the highest
risk estimate was children 1-2 years old with a cPAD of 70%.  The cPAD for the general U.S.
population was 41%.
Table 11:  Summary of Chronic Dietary Exposure and Risk for Cyprodinil
Chronic
Population Subgroup
cPAD (mg/kg/day)
Exposure (mg/kg/day)
% cPAD
General U.S. Population 0.0123
41
All Infants (< 1 year old)
0.0095
32
Children 1-2 years old
0.0211
70
Children 3-5 years old
0.0189
63
Children 6-12 years old
0.0134
45
Youth 13-19 years old
0.0104
35
Adults 20-49 years old
0.0118
39
Adults 50+ years old
0.0114
38
Females 13-49 years old
0.027
0.0122
41
5.0
AGGREGATE EXPOSURE AND RISK ASSESSMENT
In accordance with the FQPA, when there are potential residential exposures to a
pesticide, aggregate risk assessment must consider exposures from three major routes: oral,
dermal, and inhalation.  There are three sources for these types of exposures:  food, drinking
water, and residential uses.  In an aggregate assessment, exposures from relevant sources are
added together and compared to quantitative estimates of hazard (e.g., a NOAEL or PAD), or the
risks themselves can be aggregated.  When aggregating exposures and risks from various
sources, HED considers both the route and duration of exposure.  An aggregate risk assessment
of combined short-term dermal, inhalation and oral exposure is required for residential handlers
because PODs selected for these exposure routes are based on common toxicological effects
(i.e., liver effects). MOEs for residential exposure are provided in Table 12.  Aggregate MOEs
for food, water and residential exposure are provided in Table 13.
Table 12. Estimated Cyprodinil Exposure & MOEs for Short-Term Residential Handler Exposure - Dermal LOC/MOE = 100;
Inhalation LOC/MOE = 100;
Exposure
Scenario
1
Inhalation
Unit
Exposure
(ug/lb ai)
2
Dermal
Unit Exp
(mg/lb ai)
2
App Rate
(lbai/G)
3
Area
Treated
(G/day)
4
Inhalation
Dose
(m/k/d)
5
Inhalation
MOE
6
Dermal
Dose
(m/k/d)
7
Dermal
MOE
8
Aggreg
MOE
9
Mixing/Loading/Applying WDG – Ornmentals
Handheld Pump
Sprayer
3.8 56
0.0000004 > 1000000 0.0017 37000 37000
Backpack Spray
30
5.1
0.000003
> 1000000
0.0002
410000
400000
Hose-end Spray
1.5 39
0.0014 5
0.0000002 > 1000000  0.0012  53000  53000
1
Use patterns are from the proposed labels.
2
Baseline unit exposures are assumed for all residential exposure senarios. Unit exposures for and-held pump sprayer and hose-end sprayer are
from the ORETF study OMA-005 MRID 445185-01   Unit exposures for backpack sprayer are reported in the PHED Surrogate Exposure Guide
dated August 1998.

Page 21 of 36
3
Application rates are based on maximum values based on proposed label presented as lb ai/gallon).
4
Amount treated is based on the area or gallons that can be reasonably applied in a single day for each exposure scenario of concern based on the
application method and formulation/packaging type. (Standard EPA/OPP/HED values).
5
Inhalation dose (mg/kg/day) = [unit exposure (ug/lb ai) * 0.001 mg/ug unit conversion * Inhalation absorption (100%) * Application rate (lb
ai/acre or lb ai/gallon) * Daily area treated/amount handled (acres or gallons)] / Body weight (60 kg).
6
Inhalation MOE = short-term endpoint for inhalation (NOAEL 62 mkd)/ Daily Inhalation Dose.
7
Dermal Dose (mg/kg/day) = [unit exposure (mg/lb ai) * Application rate (lb ai/acre or lb ai/gallon) * Daily area treated/amount handled (acres or
gallons) * Dermal Absorption Factor (30%)] / Body weight (60 kg).
8
Dermal MOE = short-term endpoint for dermal (NOAEL 62 mkd)/Daily Dermal Dose.
9
Aggregate MOE = Inhalation/Dermal short-term endpoint (NOAEL (62 mkd)/Daily Inhalation Dose + Daily Dermal Dose
Table 13.  Short-Term Aggregate Risk Assessment for Cyprodinil
Residential Handler  Food + Water Exposure
Exposure Scenario
(mg/kg/day)
1
Residential Exposure,
(mg/kg/day)
2
MOE
Food + Water + Residential
3
Mixing/Loading/Applying WDG – Ornmentals
Handheld Pump Spray
0.0017
4400
Backpack Spray
0.0002
5200
Hose-end Spray
0.012
0.0012
4400
1
Chronic Dietary/Drinking Water Exposure (mkd) (Adults 20-49 years old)
2
Residential Exposure = Inhalation Daily Dose + Dermal Daily Dose (mkd)
3
Aggregate Food/Water/Residential MOE = Inhalation/Dermal Short-term endpoint (NOAEL 62 mkd)/Food & Water Exposure (mkd) +
Residential Exposure (mkd)
6.0 CUMULATIVE RISK
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 does not have, at this time, available data to determine whether cyprodinil has a
common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.  Unlike other pesticides for which EPA
has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has
not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to cyprodinil  and any other substances
and, cyprodinil does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances
which have tolerances in the U. S.  For the purposes of this tolerance reassessment action,
therefore, EPA has not assumed that cyprodinil has 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 the
policy statements released by EPA’s OPP concerning common mechanism determinations and
procedures for cumulating effects from substances found to have a common mechanism on
EPA’s website at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA_PEST/2002/January/Day_16/.
7.0 DATA NEEDS
7.1 Toxicity
-
Immunotoxicity Study (GLN 870.7800)

Page 22 of 36
-
Acute Neurotoxicity Study (GLN 870. 6200a)
-
Subchronic Neurotoxicity Study (GLN 870.6200b)
-
28-day dermal toxicity study in rats (GLN 870.3200) (required in prior assessment)
-
28-day inhalation toxicity study in rats (GLN 870.3465) (required in prior
assessment)
7.2
Chemistry
-
The petitioner must submit the results from the storage stability study on canola seed,
meal and oil to support sample storage conditions and durations from the canola field
trials and processing studies.
-
Based on the expected low dietary exposure of poultry to cyprodinil resulting from
this use, HED has waived the requirement for a poultry metabolism study for this
petition.  The addition of any other uses on crops that include poultry feedstuffs will
trigger the requirement for a poultry metabolism study.

Page 23 of 36
APPENDICES
1.0
TOXICOLOGY DATA SUMMARY
1.1
Guideline Data Requirements
Table 1. Guideline Data Requirements
Technical
Test
Required
Satisfied
870.1100    Acute Oral Toxicity .......................................................
870.1200    Acute Dermal Toxicity ..................................................
870.1300    Acute Inhalation Toxicity ..............................................
870.2400    Primary Eye Irritation ....................................................
870.2500    Primary Dermal Irritation ..............................................


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 26, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7089-7090]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01612]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 15055-000]

Northern States Power Company--Wisconsin; Notice of Intent To
File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document (PAD),
Commencement of Pre-Filing Process and Scoping; Request for Comments on
the PAD and Scoping Document, and Identification of Issues and
Associated Study Requests

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application and
Commencing Pre-Filing Process.
    b. Project No.: 15055-000.
    c. Date Filed: November 17, 2020.
    d. Submitted By: Northern States Power Company--Wisconsin (Northern
States).
    e. Name of Project: Gile Flowage Storage Reservoir Project (Gile
Project).
    f. Location: The project is located on the West Fork Montreal River
in Iron County, Wisconsin.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: James M. Zyduck, Director of Hydro
Plants, Northern States Power Company, 1414 West Hamilton Ave., P.O.
Box 8, Eau Claire, WI 54702-0008; email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Lee Emery at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Northern States filed its request to use the TLP on November 17,
2020. Northern States provided public notice of its request on November
13, 2020. In a letter dated January 19, 2021, the Director of the
Division of Hydropower Licensing denied Northern States' request to use
the TLP and instead requires the use of the ILP to prepare the license
application for the Gile Project.
    k. Cooperating Agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the
environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such
requests described in item m below. Cooperating agencies should note
the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation
of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See 94 FERC 61,076
(2001).
    l. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at

50 CFR part 402. We are also initiating consultation with the Wisconsin
State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106,
National Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    m. With this notice, we are designating Northern States as the
Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal
consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act; and
consultation pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act.
    n. Northern States filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including
a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to
18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
    o. A copy of the PAD may be viewed on the Commission's website
(http://www.ferc.gov), using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. At this time, the Commission has suspended access
to the Commission's Public Reference Room, due to the proclamation
declaring a National Emergency concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease
(COVID-19), issued by the President on March 13, 2020. For assistance,
contact FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free, (866)
208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    p. Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filing and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    q. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on the PAD and
Commission's staff Scoping Document 1 (SD1), as well as study requests.
All comments on the PAD and SD1, and study requests should be sent to
the address above in paragraph h. In addition, all comments on the PAD
and SD1, study requests, requests for cooperating agency status, and
all communications to and from Commission staff related to the merits
of the potential application must be filed with the Commission.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
all documents using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected] In lieu of electronic filing, you may
submit a paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must
be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    All filings with the Commission must bear the appropriate heading:
``Comments on Pre-Application Document,'' ``Study Requests,''
``Comments on Scoping Document 1,'' ``Request for Cooperating Agency
Status,'' or ``Communications to and from Commission Staff.'' Any
individual or entity interested in submitting study requests,
commenting on the PAD or SD1, and any agency requesting cooperating
status must do so by March 17, 2021.
    r. Scoping Process: The Commission's scoping process will help
determine the required level of analysis and satisfy the NEPA scoping
requirements, irrespective of whether the Commission prepares an
environmental assessment or Environmental Impact Statement.
    Due to restrictions on mass gatherings related to COVID-19, we are
waiving section 5.8(b)(viii) of the Commission's regulations and do not
intend to conduct a public scoping meeting and site visit in this case.
Instead, we are soliciting written comments, recommendations, and
information, on SD1. Any individual or entity interested in submitting
scoping comments must do so by the date specified in item q. SD1, which
outlines the subject areas to be addressed in the environmental
document, was mailed to the individuals and entities on the
Commission's official mailing list. Copies of SD1 may be viewed on the
web at http://www.ferc.gov, using the ``eLibrary'' link. Follow the
directions for accessing information in paragraph o. Based on all
written comments, a Scoping Document 2 (SD2) may be issued. SD2 may
include a revised process plan and schedule, as well as a list of
issues, identified through the scoping process. Further revisions to
the schedule may be made as appropriate.

    Dated: January 19, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-01612 Filed 1-25-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


MCPA Case (30501, 30502, 30511, 30516, 30563 and 30564)

Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)

Date: July 25, 2013

What is a Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)?

Available estimates of pesticide usage data for a particular active
ingredient that is used on agricultural crops in the United States.

Pesticide usage data obtained from various sources.  The data are then
merged, averaged, and rounded so that the presented information is not
proprietary, business confidential, or trade secret.

What does it contain?

Pesticide usage data for a single active ingredient only.

Agricultural use sites (crops) that the pesticide is reported to be used
on.

Available pesticide usage information from U.S. states that produce 80%
or more of a crop, in most cases, or less than 80%, in rare cases,
depending on the scope of the survey and available resources.

Annual percent of crop treated (average & maximum) for each agricultural
crop.

Average annual pounds of the pesticide applied for each agricultural
crop (i.e., for the states surveyed, not for the entire United States).

What assumptions can I make about the reported data?

Average pounds of active ingredient applied - Values are calculated by
merging pesticide usage data sources together; averaging across all
observations, then rounding.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than
500, then that value is labeled <500.  Estimated values between 500 &
<1,000,000 are rounded to 1 significant digit.  Estimated values of
1,000,000 or greater are rounded to 2 significant digits.)

Average percent of crop treated - Values are calculated by merging data
sources together; averaging by year, averaging across all years, &
rounding to the nearest multiple of 5.  Note:  If the estimated value is
less than 2.5, then the value is labeled <2.5.  If the estimated value
is less than 1, then the value is labeled <1.

Maximum percent of crop treated - Value is the single maximum value
reported across all data sources, across all years, & rounded up to the
nearest multiple of 5.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than 2.5,
then the value is labeled <2.5.

What are the data sources used?

USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture’s National
Agricultural Statistics Service) – pesticide usage data from 2004 to
2011.

Private pesticide market research – pesticide usage data from 2004 to
2011.

California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) Pesticide Use
Reporting (PUR) data for 2004 to 2010.

What are the limitations to the data?

Additional registered uses may exist but are not included because the
available surveys do not report usage (e.g., small acreage crops).

Lack of reported usage data for the pesticide on a crop does not imply
zero usage.

Usage data on a particular site may be noted in data sources, but not
quantified.  In these instances, the site would not be reported in the
SLUA.

Non-agricultural use sites (e.g., turf, post-harvest, mosquito control,
etc.) are not reported in the SLUA.  A separate request must be made to
receive these estimates.

Some sites show some use, even though they are not on the label.  This
usage could be due to various factors, including, but not limited to
Section 18 requests, existing stocks of the chemical, data collection
errors, and experimental use permits (EUPs).

Date: July 25, 2013

Screening Level Estimates of Agricultural Uses of MCPA Case

(30501, 30502, 30511, 30516, 30563 and 30564)

Sorted Alphabetically

Reporting Years: 2004-2011

	Percent Crop Treated

	Crop	Lbs. A.I.	Average	Maximum

1	Alfalfa	       2,000	  <1	<2.5

2	Barley	     400,000	  30	  40

3	Corn	      90,000	  <1	<2.5

4	Dry Beans/Peas	       3,000	  <1	<2.5

5	Fallow	      30,000	  <1	<2.5

6	Oats	     100,000	   5	  10

7	Pasture	      20,000	  <1	<2.5

8	Peas, Green	       8,000	  15	  20

9	Rice	       5,000	  <1	<2.5

10	Wheat	   2,400,000	  20	  40

All numbers are rounded.

	  <2.5: indicates less than 2.5 percent of crop is treated.

	  <1: indicates less than 1 percent of crop is treated.

	These MCPA Chemicals: 030553, 030556 and 030562 have no registered
products when this report was run.

	SLUA data sources include:

USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture's National
Agricultural Statistics Service)

Private Pesticide Market Research

These results reflect amalgamated data developed by the Agency and are
releasable to the public.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 225 (Wednesday, November 23, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71523-71527]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25582]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0601; FRL-10400-01-OCSPP]

2,6-Pyridinedicarboxylic Acid; Exemption From the Requirement of
a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes exemptions from the requirement of
a tolerance for residues of 2,6-pyridinedicarboxylic acid, also known
as DPA (CAS Reg. No. 499-83-2), when used as an inert ingredient in
antimicrobial pesticide formulations for use on food contact surfaces
in public eating places, dairy processing equipment, and food
processing equipment and utensils and when used in pesticide
formulations applied pre- and post-harvest to crops with an end-use
concentration not to exceed 2 parts per million (ppm). EcoLab Inc.
submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA), requesting the establishment of such exemptions from the
requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to
establish a maximum permissible level for residues of DPA.

DATES: This regulation is effective November 23, 2022. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before January 23, 2023
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-2019-0601, is available at
https://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 and the OPP Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For the latest
status information on EPA/DC services, docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Rosenblatt, Registration
Division (7505T), 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 40 CFR
part 180 through the Office of the Federal

Register's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40.

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), 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-2019-0601 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
January 23, 2023. 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-2019-0601, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://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 https://www.epa.gov//send-comments-epa-dockets.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/epa-dockets.

II. Petition for Exemption

    In the Federal Register of February 11, 2020 (85 FR 7708) (FRL-
10005-02), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21
U.S.C. 346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP IN-
11307) by EcoLab Inc., 1 Ecolab Place, St. Paul, MN 55102. The petition
requested to amend an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for
residues of 2,6-pyridinedicarboxylic acid, also known as DPA, (CAS Reg.
No. 499-83-2) by consolidating and expanding the current exemptions to
40 CFR 180.940(a) and increasing the limit to 2 parts per million (ppm)
when used as a pesticide inert ingredient in pesticide formulations
applied to hard, non-porous food-contact surfaces in public eating
places, dairy processing equipment, and food-processing equipment and
utensils. The petition also requested EPA establish an exemption from
the requirement of a tolerance at 40 CFR 180.910, limited to 2 ppm when
used in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops. That document
referenced a summary of the petition prepared by EcoLab Inc, which is
available in the docket, https://www.regulations.gov. There were no
comments received in response to the notice of filing.

III. Inert Ingredient Definition

    Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active
ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not
limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a
pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and
hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty
acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as
carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing
agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents;
and emulsifiers. The term ``inert'' is not intended to imply
nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active.
Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a
tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert
ingredients.

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for 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 . . . .''
    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably
foreseeable circumstances will pose no harm to human health. In order
to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert
ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in
conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to
determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate
exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of
a tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), 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 DPA including exposure
resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with DPA follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature
of the adverse effects caused by DPA as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in this unit.
    The Agency assessed DPA via the Threshold of Toxicological Concern

(TTC) approach as outlined by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)
in their 2019 guidance document on the use of TTC in food safety
assessment. This approach relies on the most recent evaluation of the
literature on TTC as reviewed by EFSA and the World Health Organization
(WHO) in 2016. Information regarding the database of studies and
chemicals used to derive TTCs are reviewed therein. The TTC approach
has been used by the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives of the
U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health
Organization, the former Scientific Committee on Food of the European
Commission, the European Medicines Agency, and EFSA.
    TTC are derived from a conservative and rigorous approach developed
by Munro and Kroes to establish generic threshold values for human
exposure at which a very low probability of adverse effects is likely.
There are three Cramer Classes that are organized by structural classes
using the Cramer (1978) decision scheme. By comparing a range of
compounds by Cramer Class (classes I, II, and III) and no-observed-
effect-level (NOEL), fifth percentile NOELs were established for each
Cramer Class as ``Human Exposure Thresholds'' assuming a 60 kg human.
These values were 3, 0.91 and 0.15 mg/kg/day for classes I, II and III,
respectively.

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. 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 https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/overview-risk-assessment-pesticide-program.
    The human exposure threshold value for threshold (i.e., non-cancer)
risks for DPA is based upon Cramer structural class. DPA is categorized
as Cramer class III based on the OECD QSAR toolbox analysis of the
Cramer decision scheme; therefore, this assessment uses the NOEL of
0.15 mg/kg/day as the point of departure for all exposure scenarios
assessed (chronic dietary, incidental oral, dermal and inhalation
exposures).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure. In evaluating dietary exposure to DPA, EPA
considered exposure under the proposed tolerance exemptions at a
concentration not to exceed 2 ppm of DPA in an end-use pesticide
formulation, as well as any other sources of dietary exposure. For the
purpose of the screening level dietary risk assessment to support this
request for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for DPA, a
conservative drinking water concentration value of 100 ppb based on
screening level modeling was used to assess the contribution to
drinking water for the chronic dietary risk assessments for parent
compound.
    Dietary exposure (food and drinking water) may occur from the
existing and proposed uses of DPA (e.g., eating foods treated with
pesticide formulations containing DPA, and drinking water exposures).
An acute dietary assessment was not performed due to the lack of
adverse effects attributed to a single dietary exposure.
    2. Residential exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is used
in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure
(e.g., from hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, and tables).
    DPA may be used as an inert ingredient in products that are
registered for specific uses that may result in short-term and
intermediate-term residential exposure, such as pesticides used in and
around the home. The Agency conducted a conservative assessment of
potential residential exposure by assessing DPA in pesticides in
outdoor and indoor scenarios. The Agency's assessment of adult
residential exposure combines high-end dermal and inhalation handler
exposure from outdoor and indoor uses. The Agency's assessment of
children's residential exposure includes total post-application
exposures associated with total exposures to contact with both treated
outdoor or indoor scenarios.
    3. 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 made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to DPA
and any other substances, and DPA does not appear to produce toxic
metabolites produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that DPA has 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 https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    FFDCA Section 408(b)(2)(C) provides that EPA shall retain 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 Food Quality Protection Act
(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. The FQPA SF has been reduced to 1X for DPA because
clear NOELs and LOELs were established in the studies analyzed by Munro
et al 1996 (which included developmental and reproductive toxicity
studies), maternal and developmental-specific 5th percentile NOELs
calculated by van Ravenzwaay et al 2011 indicate low potential for
offspring susceptibility, there is no known precedent for developmental
or reproductive toxicity potential for DPA using the QSAR Toolbox DART
Scheme, and the conservative assumptions made in the exposure
assessment are unlikely underestimate to risk.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure

estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear
cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring
cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-,
and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated
aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs
to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute aggregate risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes
into account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food
and drinking water. No adverse effects resulting from a single oral
exposure were identified and no acute dietary endpoint were selected
for DPA. Therefore, DPA is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Short-term aggregate 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).
    DPA is currently used as an inert ingredient in pesticide products
that are 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.
    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 1400 for both
adult males and females. EPA has concluded the combined short-term
aggregated food, water, and residential pesticide exposures result in
an aggregate MOE of 530 for children. Because EPA's level of concern
for DPA is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.
    3. Intermediate-term aggregate 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, DPA exposure values for intermediate term risks are all lower
than the short-term risk. 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 DPA.
    4. Chronic aggregate risk. A chronic aggregate risk assessment
takes into account exposure estimates from chronic dietary consumption
of food and drinking water. Using the exposure assumptions described in
unit IV for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure
to DPA from food and water will utilize 18.1% of the cPAD for children
1 to 2 years old, the highest exposed subgroup. Therefore, chronic
dietary risks are below the Agency's level of concern of 100% of the
cPAD. The chronic aggregate risk is equal to the chronic dietary risk
and is not of concern for DPA.
    5. Cancer aggregate risk. No structural alerts for cancer were
identified for DPA. Therefore, there is low concern for genotoxicity/
carcinogenicity in humans and the assessment under the TTC value for
non-cancer risks is protective for all risks, including
carcinogenicity.
    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 residues of DPA.

V. Other Considerations

Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is not establishing a numerical tolerance for DPA in or on
any food commodities. EPA is establishing a limitation on the amount of
DPA that may be used in pesticide formulations. This limitation will be
enforced through the pesticide registration process under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (``FIFRA''), 7 U.S.C. 136
et seq. EPA will not register any pesticide formulation for food use
that exceeds 2 ppm of 2,6-pyridinedicarboxylic acid in the final
pesticide formulation.

VI. Conclusions

    Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is
established under 40 CFR 180.940(a) for 2,6-pyridinedicarboxylic acid,
also known as DPA, (CAS Reg. No. 499-83-2) when used as an inert
ingredient in antimicrobial pesticide formulations applied to food
contact surfaces in public eating places, dairy processing equipment,
and food processing equipment and utensils at an end-use concentration
not to exceed 2 ppm, and under 40 CFR 180.910 when used as an inert
ingredient (stabilizer) in pesticide formulations applied to growing
crops or to raw agricultural commodities after harvest at a
concentration not to exceed 2 ppm.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes a tolerance 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) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). 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).

VIII. 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: November 17, 2022.
Daniel Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending
40 CFR part 180 as follows:

PART 180--TOLERANCES AND EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE CHEMICAL RESIDUES
IN FOOD

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.  180.910, amend Table 1 to 180.910, by adding in
alphabetical order, an entry for ``2,6-pyridinedicarboxylic acid (CAS
Reg. No. 449-83-2)'' to the table to read as follows:

Sec.  180.910   Inert ingredients used pre- and post-harvest;
exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance.

* * * * *

                           Table 1 to 180.910
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Inert ingredients             Limits                Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
2,6-pyridinedicarboxylic acid  Not to exceed 2  Stabilizer.
 (CAS Reg. No. 449-83-2).       ppm.

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

0
3. Amend Sec.  180.940, by:
0
a. Adding in alphabetical order an entry for the pesticide chemical
``2,6-Pyridinedicarboxylic acid'' in table 1 to paragraph (a);
0
b. Removing the entry for ``2,6-Pyridinedicarboxylic acid'' from the
table in paragraph (b); and
0
c. Removing the entry for ``2,6-Pyridinedicarboxylic acid'' from the
table in paragraph (c).
    The addition reads as follows:

Sec.  180.940   Tolerance exemptions for active and inert ingredients
for use in antimicrobial formulations (Food-contact surface sanitizing
solutions).

* * * * *
    (a) * * *

                        Table 1 to Paragraph (a)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Pesticide chemical         CAS Reg. No.            Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
2,6-Pyridinedicarboxylic acid..        499-83-2  When ready for use, the
                                                  end-use concentration
                                                  is not to exceed 2
                                                  ppm.

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-25582 Filed 11-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 96 (Monday, May 18, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 29614]
[FR Doc No: C2-2020-05526]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Parts 200, 230, 232, 239, 240, 270, and 274

[Release Nos. 33-10765; 34-88358; IC-33814; File No. S7-23-18]
RIN 3235-AK60

Updated Disclosure Requirements and Summary Prospectus for
Variable Annuity and Variable Life Insurance Contracts

Correction

    In rule document 2020-05526, beginning on page 26954 in the issue
of Friday, May 1, 2020, make the following correction:

Sec.  274.11  [Corrected]

0
On page 26256, in Sec.  274.11, after the photo material, insert the
following amendatory instructions:
0
48. Effective January 1, 2022, Form N-4 (referenced in Sec. Sec.
239.17b and 274.11c) is further amended by removing paragraph (a)(9) of
Item 1.
0
49. Revise Form N-6 (referenced in Sec. Sec.  239.17c and 274.11d) to
read as follows:

    Note:  The text of Form N-6 will not appear in the Code of
Federal Regulations.

[FR Doc. C2-2020-05526 Filed 5-15-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1301-00-D


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 24 (Monday, February 8, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 8612]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02502]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2462-002; ER18-2264-005; ER19-289-005;
    ER11-4111-002.
    Applicants: Macquarie Energy LLC, Macquarie Energy Trading LLC,
Cleco Cajun LLC, Hudson Ranch Power I LLC.
    Description: Supplement to November 30, 2020 Notice of Non-Material
Change in Status of Macquarie Energy LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 2/2/21.
    Accession Number: 20210202-5023.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/23/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2906-017; ER10-2908-017; ER11-4393-011; ER11-
4669-009; ER11-4670-009; ER12-709-008; ER19-1716-005.
    Applicants: Morgan Stanley Capitol Group Inc., MS Solar Solutions
Corp., Morgan Stanley Energy Structuring, L.L.C, TAQA Gen X LLC,
Naturener Montana Wind Energy, LLC, NaturEner Power Watch, LLC,
NaturEner Wind Watch, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Morgan
Stanley Capital Group Inc., et al.
    Filed Date: 2/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20210201-5264.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/22/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1743-001.
    Applicants: Gulf Power Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: Notice of Effective Date and
Compliance Filing to be effective 1/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 1/29/21.
    Accession Number: 20210129-5188.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/19/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2283-002.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: 2021-02-02_SA 3517 Substitute
Deficiency Response NSP-MDU FSA (J316) to be effective 7/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 2/2/21.
    Accession Number: 20210202-5083.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/23/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-304-001.
    Applicants: Cherokee County Cogeneration Partners, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Response to Request for Additional
Information to be effective 1/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 2/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20210201-5216.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/22/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-610-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Request to Defer Action: Revised
ISA, SA No. 1503; Queue No. AD2-001 to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 2/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20210201-5202.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/22/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1015-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: OATT Revised Ancillary
Services Rate Case Settlement Filing to be effective 1/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 2/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20210201-5213.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/22/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1016-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Petition for Limited Waiver of PJM Interconnection,
L.L.C.
    Filed Date: 1/29/21.
    Accession Number: 20210129-5439.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/19/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1017-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: Annual Filing of Revised Costs and Accruals for Post-
Employment Benefits Other than Pensions of NorthWestern Corporation.
    Filed Date: 2/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20210201-5265.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/22/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1018-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 205: Procuring Operating
Reserves and Supplemental Reserves in the NYCA to be effective 12/31/
9998.
    Filed Date: 2/2/21.
    Accession Number: 20210202-5058.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/23/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1019-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Florida, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: DEF-DEF Notice of Termination RS
No. 331 to be effective 4/4/2021.
    Filed Date: 2/2/21.
    Accession Number: 20210202-5092.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/23/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1020-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., ALLETE,
Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2021-02-02_ALLETE
Depreciation Rate Filing to be effective 1/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 2/2/21.
    Accession Number: 20210202-5107.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/23/21.

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

    Dated: February 2, 2021.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-02502 Filed 2-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P