42786 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 141 / Wednesday, July 23, 2014 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. EL14–74–000; Docket No. 

EL14–75–000] 

Kansas City Power & Light Company, 

KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations 

Company; Notice of Institution of 

Section 206 Proceeding and Refund 

Effective Date 

On July 17, 2014, the Commission 

issued an order in Docket Nos. EL14– 

74–000 and EL14–75–000, pursuant to 

section 206 of the Federal Power Act 

(FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting 

an investigation into the justness and 

reasonableness of Kansas City Power & 

Light Company and KCP&L Greater 

Missouri Operations Company’s formula 

rate protocols under KCP&L Greater 

Missouri Operations Company’s Open 

Access Transmission Tariff and 

Southwest Power Pool, Inc.’s Open 

Access Transmission Tariff. Kansas City 

Power & Light Co. and KCP&L Greater 

Missouri Operations Co., 148 FERC ¶ 

61,034 (2014). 

The refund effective date in Docket 

Nos. EL14–74–000 and EL14–75–000, 

established pursuant to section 206(b) of 

the FPA, will be the date of publication 

of this notice in the Federal Register. 

Dated: July 17, 2014. 

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2014–17302 Filed 7–22–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. EL14–77–000] 

Westar Energy, Inc.; Notice of 

Institution of Section 206 Proceeding 

and Refund Effective Date 

On July 17, 2014, the Commission 

issued an order in Docket No. EL14–77– 

000, pursuant to section 206 of the 

Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 

824e (2012), instituting an investigation 

into the justness and reasonableness of 

Westar Energy, Inc.’s formula rate 

protocols under the Westar Open Access 

Transmission Tariff and Southwest 

Power Pool, Inc. Open Access 

Transmission Tariff. Westar Energy, 

Inc., 148 FERC ¶ 61,033 (2014). 

The refund effective date in Docket 

No. EL14–77–000, established pursuant 

to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the 

date of publication of this notice in the 

Federal Register. 

Dated: July 17, 2014. 

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2014–17304 Filed 7–22–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. EL14–71–000] 

Black Hills Power, Inc.; Notice of 

Institution of Section 206 Proceeding 

and Refund Effective Date 

On July 17, 2014, the Commission 

issued an order in Docket No. EL14–71– 

000, pursuant to section 206 of the 

Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 

824e (2012), instituting an investigation 

into the justness and reasonableness of 

the formula rate protocols of Black Hills 

Power, Inc., as joint administrator, 

under the Joint Open Access 

Transmission Tariff of Black Hills, Basin 

Electric Power Cooperative, and Powder 

River Energy Corporation. Black Hills 

Power, Inc., 148 FERC ¶ 61,035 (2014). 

The refund effective date in Docket 

No. EL14–71–000, established pursuant 

to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the 

date of publication of this notice in the 

Federal Register. 

Dated: July 17, 2014. 

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2014–17298 Filed 7–22–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. EL14–73–000] 

The Empire District Electric Company; 

Notice of Institution of Section 206 

Proceeding and Refund Effective Date 

On July 17, 2014, the Commission 

issued an order in Docket No. EL14–73– 

000, pursuant to section 206 of the 

Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 

824e (2012), instituting an investigation 

into the justness and reasonableness of 

The Empire District Electric Company’s 

formula rate protocols under the Empire 

Open Access Transmission, Energy and 

Operating Reserve Markets Tariff, and 

Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Open 

Access Transmission Tariff. The Empire 

District Electric Company, 148 FERC ¶ 

61,030 (2014). 

The refund effective date in Docket 

No. EL14–73–000, established pursuant 

to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the 

date of publication of this notice in the 

Federal Register. 

Dated: July 17, 2014. 

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2014–17301 Filed 7–22–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0473; FRL–9913–38] 

Registration Review Proposed Interim 

Decisions; Notice of Availability 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces the 

availability of EPA’s proposed interim 

registration review decisions and opens 

a public comment period on the 

proposed interim decisions. Registration 

review is EPA’s periodic review of 

pesticide registrations to ensure that 

each pesticide continues to satisfy the 

statutory standard for registration, that 

is, that the pesticide can perform its 

intended function without unreasonable 

adverse effects on human health or the 

environment. Through this program, 

EPA is ensuring that each pesticide’s 

registration is based on current 

scientific and other knowledge, 

including its effects on human health 

and the environment. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 22, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by the docket identification 

(ID) number for the specific pesticide of 

interest provided in the table in Unit 

II.A., 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 

Confidential Business Information (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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 141 / Wednesday, July 23, 2014 / Notices 42787 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

pesticide specific information, contact: 

The Chemical Review Manager for the 

pesticide of interest identified in the 

table in Unit II.A. 

For general information on the 

registration review program, contact: 

Richard Dumas, Pesticide Re-Evaluation 

Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide 

Programs, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: (703) 308–8015; email address: 

dumas.richard@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to Me? 

This action is directed to the public 

in general, and may be of interest to a 

wide range of stakeholders including 

environmental, human health, farm 

worker, and agricultural advocates; the 

chemical industry; pesticide users; and 

members of the public interested in the 

sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. 

Since others also may be interested, the 

Agency has not attempted to describe all 

the specific entities that may be affected 

by this action. If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult the 

Chemical Review Manager for the 

pesticide of interest identified in the 

table in Unit II.A. 

B. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark 

the part or all of the information that 

you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

i. Identify the document by docket ID 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

ii. Follow directions. The Agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

iv. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

v. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

vi. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns and suggest 

alternatives. 

vii. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

viii. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Background 

A. What action is the Agency taking? 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58, this notice 

announces the availability of EPA’s 

proposed interim registration review 

decisions for the pesticides shown in 

the table in this unit, and opens a 60- 

day public comment period on the 

proposed interim decisions. 

1. Acetaminophen (proposed interim 

decision). The registration review 

docket for acetaminophen (EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2012–0145) opened in a notice 

published in the Federal Register of 

March 28, 2012 (77 FR 18810) (FRL– 

9342–1). Acetaminophen is registered 

for use as a vertebrate pesticide to 

control the invasive brown tree snake in 

Guam. The snakes ingest baited mice, 

which are lethal to the snake. There are 

no registered food/feed uses for 

acetaminophen. No pesticide tolerances 

have been established. EPA did not 

conduct a human health risk assessment 

because acetaminophen’s 

pharmaceutical use is well-studied and 

opportunities for exposure from its 

pesticidal use are extremely limited. 

The Agency conducted a quantitative 

ecological risk assessment for 

acetaminophen. Baited mice are not 

likely to be consumed or consumed in 

quantity by resident animals other than 

the brown tree snake, the 

acetaminophen in the mice is not likely 

to end up in aquatic environments, and 

there is little potential for exposure to 

plants. The Agency has concluded that 

there are no risks of concern for native, 

non-target organisms associated with 

the pesticidal use of acetaminophen. 

The Agency has made a ‘‘no effect’’ 

determination for all federally listed 

species and a ‘‘no adverse modification 

of critical habitat’’ determination. 

Acetaminophen has not been evaluated 

under the Endocrine Disruptor 

Screening Program (EDSP). Therefore, 

the Agency’s final registration review 

decision is dependent on the results of 

the evaluation of potential endocrine 

disruptor risks. Pending the outcome of 

this action, EPA is planning to issue an 

interim registration review decision for 

acetaminophen. 

2. Clofentezine (proposed interim 

decision). The registration review 

docket for clofentezine (EPA–HQ–OPP– 

2006–0240) opened in a notice 

published in the Federal Register of 

March 28, 2007 (72 FR 14548) (FRL– 

8118–3). Clofentezine is an acaricide 

registered for use to control mites. It is 

a liquid formulation for use on almonds, 

apples, apricots, cherries, Christmas 

trees, grapes (except New York), 

nectarines, ornamentals (greenhouse 

and outdoor), peaches, pears, 

persimmons, and walnuts. There are 

currently no registered residential uses 

of clofentezine. Based on the human 

health risk assessment conducted in 

support of registration review for 

clofentezine, the Agency determined 

that there are no human health risks of 

concern for the currently registered uses 

of clofentezine. Based on the ecological 

risk assessment that was completed in 

support of registration review for 

clofentezine, EPA has determined that 

all outdoor uses of clofentezine can 

potentially lead to direct adverse effects 

to listed and non-listed birds. 

The chronic risk level of concern 

(LOC) was exceeded by dietary risk 

quotients (RQs) for birds. As birds serve 

as surrogates to reptiles and terrestrialphase amphibians, risk to these taxa is 

also a possibility. The chronic risk to 

mammals is uncertain and is expected 

to be limited. The dose-based risk 

assessment concludes that the chronic 

RQs slightly exceeds the chronic LOC 

for small to medium mammals feeding 

exclusively on short grass, but this was 

based on a study which showed no 

effects to growth, reproduction, or 

survival at the highest dose tested. 

Clofentezine is moderately persistent in 

the terrestrial environment and is 

expected to decline to below toxic levels 

approximately 1 to 2 weeks after 

application. 

Use of clofentezine is not expected to 

pose a risk to foraging (adult) bees; 

however, there is a potential for risk to 

non-listed and listed terrestrial 

arthropods because of adverse effects to 

reproduction and development. Use of 

clofentezine is not expected to cause 

direct or indirect adverse effects to nonlisted or listed fish, aquatic 

invertebrates, or aquatic plants. Thus, a 

‘‘no effect’’ determination is made for all 

listed aquatic organisms. Several lines 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

42788 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 141 / Wednesday, July 23, 2014 / Notices 

of evidence indicate that clofentezine 

has low toxicity to plants. Therefore, 

EPA concludes that use of clofentezine 

will not pose risk to terrestrial, semiaquatic (monocots, and dicots) or 

aquatic plants, and is not expected to 

harm listed species of plants. Thus, a 

‘‘no effect’’ determination is made for all 

listed plants. 

This interim decision does not cover 

the EDSP component of the clofentezine 

registration review case. Additionally, 

the ecological risk assessment for 

clofentezine did not come to a 

conclusion of ‘‘no effect’’ to some listed 

species. Therefore, consultation with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS) on the potential risk of 

clofentezine to some listed species will 

be necessary. The Agency is issuing a 

proposed interim registration review 

decision pending the evaluation of 

potential endocrine disruptor risk and 

consultation with FWS. 

3. Cyromazine (proposed interim 

decision). The registration review 

docket for cyromazine (EPA–HQ–OPP– 

2006–0108) opened in a notice 

published in the Federal Register of 

March 28, 2007 (72 FR 14548) (FRL– 

8118–3). Cyromazine is a triazine which 

acts as an insect growth regulator. 

Cyromazine is registered for use on 

several agricultural crops such as beans, 

peppers, and tomatoes; it is registered 

for use on indoor ornamentals, and to 

control flies in manure. There are no 

residential uses for cyromazine. EPA 

conducted a human health occupational 

risk assessment and did not identify any 

risks of concern. The ecological risk 

assessment identified potential risks to 

several taxa including birds, mammals, 

and bees. To mitigate potential 

ecological risks, the Agency is 

proposing to increase the application 

interval for cyromazine use on potatoes; 

add label language for the onion seed 

treatment use; add precautionary label 

language to reduce risk to bees; use; 

and, increase the minimum droplet size 

for aerial applications. The proposed 

changes will reduce estimated risks, but 

will not reach a conclusion of ‘‘no 

effect’’ to listed species. Therefore, 

consultation with FWS on the potential 

risk of cyromazine to listed species will 

be necessary. Cyromazine has not been 

evaluated under EDSP. Therefore, the 

Agency’s final registration review 

decision is dependent on the results of 

consultation under section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 

U.S.C. 1536) with the FWS and the 

evaluation of potential endocrine 

disruptor risk. Pending the outcome of 

these actions, EPA is planning to issue 

an interim registration review decision 

for cyromazine. 

4. Fosthiazate (proposed interim 

decision). The registration review 

docket for fosthiazate (EPA–HQ–OPP– 

2009–0267) opened in a notice 

published in the Federal Register of 

June 24, 2009 (74 FR 30077) (FRL– 

8422–4). Fosthiazate is an 

organophosphate nematicide for use 

only on tomatoes, via drip irrigation 

under plastic. There are no residential 

uses for fosthiazate. EPA conducted a 

human health dietary and occupational 

risk assessment for fosthiazate and did 

not identify any risks of concern. The 

ecological risk assessment identified 

potential risks to several taxa including 

birds, mammals, and soil-bound 

terrestrial invertebrates. To mitigate 

potential ecological risks, the agency is 

proposing to modify the application 

directions for fosthiazate. The proposed 

change will reduce estimated risks, but 

will not reach a conclusion of ‘‘no 

effect’’ to listed species. Therefore, 

consultation with FWS on the potential 

risk of fosthiazate to listed species will 

be necessary. Fosthiazate has not been 

evaluated under EDSP. Therefore, the 

Agency’s final registration review 

decision is dependent on the results of 

consultation under ESA section 7 with 

FWS and the evaluation of potential 

endocrine disruptor risk. Pending the 

outcome of these actions, EPA is 

planning to issue an interim registration 

review decision for fosthiazate. 

5. Hexythiazox (proposed interim 

decision). The registration review 

docket for hexythiazox (EPA–HQ–OPP– 

2006–0114) opened in a notice 

published in the Federal Register of 

February 2, 2007 (72 FR 5050) (FRL– 

8113–1). Hexythiazox is an acaricide 

that acts primarily as a mite growth 

inhibitor/ovicide and is used to control 

mites. It is registered for use on a variety 

of agricultural crops, turf, and various 

residential plants. The Agency 

conducted a human health risk 

assessment and did not identify any 

risks of concern. The ecological risk 

assessment identified areas of potential 

risk of uncertainty to terrestrial 

invertebrates, bees, and chronic risk to 

fish due to lack of data. The Agency is 

therefore requiring a bee study to 

determine any productive effects to 

pollinators. While chronic risk to fish 

and non-target invertebrates is uncertain 

due to data gaps, the potential risks 

expected to be low due to as 

hexythiazox is applied only once per 

year at a low rate and is not highly 

persistent in the environment. The 

Agency has completed a partial ESA 

analysis and is making a no effect 

determination under the ESA for direct 

adverse effects to listed mammalian, 

avian (and reptile surrogates) and 

aquatic plant (vascular and 

nonvascular). The analysis for indirect 

effects to listed species in these taxa or 

effects to their designated critical 

habitat has not yet been completed. 

Therefore, consultation with FWS and 

the National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) (the Services) on the potential 

risk of hexythiazox to listed species will 

be necessary. Hexythiazox has not been 

evaluated under the EDSP. Therefore, 

the Agency’s final registration review 

decision is dependent on the result of 

consultation under ESA section 7 with 

FWS and the evaluation of potential 

endocrine disruptor risk. Pending the 

outcome of these actions, EPA is 

planning to issue an interim registration 

review decision for hexythiazox. 

6. Lactofen (proposed interim 

decision). The registration review 

docket for lactofen (EPA–HQ–OPP– 

2005–0287) opened in a notice 

published in the Federal Register of 

February 2, 2007 (72 FR 5050) (FRL– 

8113–1). Lactofen is a light dependent 

peroxidizing herbicide (LDPH) with 

uses on conifer seedlings, cotton, kenaf, 

peanuts, and soybean, with Statespecific uses on fruiting vegetables, 

okra, and snap beans. There are no 

residential uses for lactofen. EPA 

conducted a human health occupational 

risk assessment and did not identify any 

risks of concern. The ecological risk 

assessment identified potential risks to 

several different taxa. However, due to 

the number of conservative assumptions 

included in the assessment, and 

additional use and usage information to 

help characterize potential risks, the 

Agency is not proposing mitigation 

changes at this time. The risk 

assessment for lactofen did not come to 

a conclusion of ‘‘no effect’’ to listed 

species. Therefore, consultation with 

FWS on the potential risk of lactofen to 

listed species will be necessary. 

Lactofen has not been evaluated under 

EDSP. Therefore, the Agency’s final 

registration review decision is 

dependent on the results of consultation 

under ESA section 7 with FWS and the 

evaluation of potential endocrine 

disruptor risk. Pending the outcome of 

these actions, EPA is planning to issue 

an interim registration review decision 

for lactofen. 

7. Macleaya extract (proposed interim 

decision). The registration review 

docket for macleaya extract (EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2011–0172) opened in a notice 

published in the Federal Register of 

March 30, 2011 (76 FR 17646) (FRL– 

8868–9). Macleaya extract is a plant 

extract of Macleaya cordata, and is 

registered for use only in enclosed 

commercial greenhouses, as an 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 141 / Wednesday, July 23, 2014 / Notices 42789 

ornamental plant fungicide for the 

control of foliar fungal diseases. There 

are no registered food uses of macleaya 

extract. EPA completed a qualitative 

draft human health risk assessment for 

all macleaya extract uses. No risks of 

concern were identified. The Agency 

also conducted an ecological risk 

assessment and endangered species 

effects determination. No risks of 

concern were identified and the Agency 

has made a ‘‘no effect’’ determination 

for federally listed species and a ‘‘No 

Habitat Modification’’ determination for 

all designated critical habitats under 

ESA. Macleaya extract has not been 

evaluated under EDSP. Therefore, the 

Agency’s final registration review 

decision is dependent on the result of 

the evaluation of potential endocrine 

disruptor risk. Pending the outcome of 

this action, EPA is planning to issue an 

interim registration review decision for 

macleaya extract. 

8. Quizalofop (proposed interim 

decision). The registration review 

docket for quizalofop (EPA–HQ–OPP– 

2007–1089) opened in a notice 

published in the Federal Register of 

December 19, 2007 (72 FR 71893) (FRL– 

8342–9). Quizalofop is a selective postemergence herbicide and appears as two 

different isomers: Quizalofop-ethyl and 

quizalofop-p-ethyl. Quizalofop-ethyl is a 

50/50 racemic mixture of R- and Senantiomers and there are no active 

pesticide registrations of this isomer. 

Quizalofop is the purified R-enantiomer 

and the pesticidally active isomer. For 

the Agency’s purposes, both isomers 

will be referred to collectively as 

quizalofop. Quizalofop is registered to 

control annual and perennial grasses in 

various crops including Chinese 

cabbage, cotton, garlic, grains, legumes, 

mint, pineapple, soybean, sugar beets, 

and sunflower. Quizalofop is also used 

in non-agricultural settings, such as 

cottonwood and poplar plantations, 

fencerows, roadsides, and other 

uncultivated areas. EPA conducted a 

risk assessment for both human health 

and ecological risk. No risks of concern 

were identified in the human health risk 

assessment. The ecological risk 

assessment indicated potential risks to 

amphibians, freshwater fish, non-target 

monocots, and terrestrial mammals. The 

Agency is proposing mitigation to 

reduce spray drift risk to non-target 

organisms. The ecological risk 

assessment did not come to a 

conclusion of ‘‘no effect’’ to listed 

species, therefore, consultation with 

FWS on the potential risk of quizalofop 

to listed species will be necessary. 

Quizalofop has not been evaluated 

under EDSP. Therefore, the Agency’s 

final registration review decision is 

dependent on the result of consultation 

under ESA section 7 with FWS and the 

evaluation of potential endocrine 

disruptor risk. Pending the outcome of 

these actions, EPA is planning to issue 

an interim registration review decision 

for quizalofop. 

9. Trinexapac-ethyl (proposed interim 

decision). The registration review 

docket for trinexapac-ethyl (EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2008–0657) opened in a notice 

published in the Federal Register of 

September 15, 2008 (73 FR 53244) 

(FRL–8381–3). Trinexapac-ethyl is a 

plant growth regulator registered for use 

by homeowners and professional 

applicators to manage growth of barley, 

grasses grown for seed, oats, sugarcane, 

triticale, turf grass, and wheat. Turf 

grass uses include athletic fields and 

parks, commercial and residential 

lawns, golf courses, and sod farms. It is 

also registered for application around 

flower beds, ornamental trees, and 

shrubs. 

EPA conducted a human health risk 

assessment and did not identify any 

risks of concern. In addition, EPA 

conducted an ecological risk 

assessment. Based on low-risk 

estimates, and the conservative nature 

of the risk assessment, the Agency does 

not anticipate ecological risks of 

concern for assessed taxa from currently 

registered uses of trinexapac-ethyl. The 

Agency is not proposing mitigation 

changes at this time. However, the 

Agency is proposing that labels clarify 

the single-maximum application rate for 

liquid turf end-use products. The risk 

assessment for trinexapac-ethyl did not 

come to a conclusion of ‘‘no effect’’ to 

listed species. Therefore, consultation 

with the Services on the potential risk 

of trinexapac-ethyl to listed species will 

be necessary. Trinexapac-ethyl has not 

been evaluated under EDSP. Therefore, 

the Agency’s final registration review 

decision is dependent on the result of 

consultation under ESA section 7 with 

FWS and the evaluation of potential 

endocrine disrupter risk. Pending the 

outcome of these actions, EPA is 

planning to issue an interim registration 

review decision for trinexapac-ethyl. 

TABLE—REGISTRATION REVIEW PROPOSED INTERIM DECISIONS

Registration review case name and number Pesticide docket 

identification number Chemical review manager, telephone number, email address 

Acetaminophen (Case 7610) .......................... EPA–HQ–OPP–2012– 

0145.

Bonnie Adler, (703) 308–8523, adler.bonnie@epa.gov. 

Clofentezine (Case 7602) ............................... EPA–HQ–OPP–2006– 

0240.

Wilhelmena Livingston, (703) 308–8025, livingston.wilhelmena@

epa.gov. 

Cyromazine (Case 7439) ................................ EPA–HQ–OPP–2006– 

0108.

James Parker, (703) 306–0469, parker.james@epa.gov. 

Fosthiazate (Case 7604) ................................ EPA–HQ–OPP–2009– 

0267.

James Parker, (703) 306–0469, parker.james@epa.gov. 

Hexythiazox (Case 7404) ............................... EPA–HQ–OPP–2006– 

0114.

Molly Clayton, (703) 603–0522, clayton.molly@epa.gov. 

Lactofen (Case 7210) ..................................... EPA–HQ–OPP–2005– 

0287.

Kelly Ballard, (703) 305–8126, ballard.kelly@epa.gov. 

Macleaya Extract (Case 7024) ....................... EPA–HQ–OPP–2011– 

0172.

Susan Bartow, (703) 603–0065, bartow.susan@epa.gov. 

Quizalofop (Case 7215) .................................. EPA–HQ–OPP–2007– 

1089.

Khue Nguyen, (703) 347–0248, nguyen.khue@epa.gov. 

Trinexapac-ethyl (Case 7228) ........................ EPA–HQ–OPP–2008– 

0657.

Kaitlin Keller, (703) 308–8172, keller.kaitlin@epa.gov. 

The registration review docket for a 

pesticide includes earlier documents 

related to the registration review of the 

case. For example, the review opened 

with a Summary Document, containing 

a Preliminary Work Plan, for public 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

42790 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 141 / Wednesday, July 23, 2014 / Notices 

comment. A Final Work Plan was 

placed in the docket following public 

comment on the initial docket. 

The documents in the dockets 

describe EPA’s rationales for conducting 

additional risk assessments for the 

registration review of the pesticides 

included in the table in Unit II.A., as 

well as the Agency’s subsequent risk 

findings and consideration of possible 

risk mitigation measures. These 

proposed interim registration review 

decisions are supported by the 

rationales included in those documents. 

Following public comment, the 

Agency is planning to issue interim 

registration review decisions for 

products containing the pesticides listed 

in the table in Unit II.A. 

The registration review program is 

being conducted under congressionally 

mandated timeframes, and EPA 

recognizes the need both to make timely 

decisions and to involve the public. 

Section 3(g) of the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) 

(7 U.S.C. 136a(g)) required EPA to 

establish by regulation procedures for 

reviewing pesticide registrations, 

originally with a goal of reviewing each 

pesticide’s registration every 15 years to 

ensure that a pesticide continues to 

meet the FIFRA standard for 

registration. The Agency’s final rule to 

implement this program was issued in 

the Federal Register of August 9, 2006 

(71 FR 45720) (FRL–8080–4) and 

became effective October 10, 2006, and 

appears at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C. 

The Pesticide Registration Improvement 

Act of 2003 (PRIA) was amended and 

extended in September 2007. FIFRA, as 

amended by PRIA in 2007, requires EPA 

to complete registration review 

decisions by October 1, 2022, for all 

pesticides registered as of October 1, 

2007 (7 U.S.C. 136a(g)). 

The registration review final rule at 40 

CFR 155.58(a) provides for a minimum 

60-day public comment period on all 

proposed registration review decisions. 

This comment period is intended to 

provide an opportunity for public input 

and a mechanism for initiating any 

necessary amendments to the proposed 

decision. All comments should be 

submitted using the methods in 

ADDRESSES, and must be received by 

EPA on or before the closing date. These 

comments will become part of the 

docket for the pesticides included in the 

table in Unit II.A. Comments received 

after the close of the comment period 

will be marked ‘‘late.’’ EPA is not 

required to consider these late 

comments. 

The Agency will carefully consider all 

comments received by the closing date 

and will provide a ‘‘Response to 

Comments Memorandum’’ in the 

docket. The final registration review 

decision will explain the effect that any 

comments had on the decision and 

provide the Agency’s response to 

significant comments. 

Background on the registration review 

program is provided at: http://

www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_

review. Links to earlier documents 

related to the registration review of 

these pesticides are provided at: 

http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/

registration_review/reg_review_

status.htm. 

B. What is the Agency’s authority for 

taking this action? 

Section 3(g) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 

136a(g)) and 40 CFR part 155, subpart C, 

provide authority for this action. 

List of Subjects 

Environmental protection, 

Acetaminophen, Administrative 

practice and procedure, Clofentezine, 

Cyromazine, Fosthiazate, Hexythiazox, 

Lactofen, Macleaya extract, Pesticides 

and pests, Quizalofop, and Trinexapacethyl. 

Dated: July 15, 2014. 

Richard P. Keigwin, Jr., 

Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, 

Office of Pesticide Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2014–17244 Filed 7–22–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OA–2014–0001: FRL 9914–13– 

OA] 

Good Neighbor Environmental Board 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Request for Nominations to the 

Good Neighbor Environmental Board. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) invites nominations from 

a diverse range of qualified candidates 

to be considered for appointment to its 

Good Neighbor Environmental Board 

(GNEB). Vacancies are expected to be 

filled by March 9, 2015. Sources in 

addition to this Federal Register Notice 

may also be utilized in the solicitation 

of nominees. 

Background: GNEB is a federal 

advisory committee chartered under the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act 

(FACA), Public Law 92–463. GNEB was 

created in 1992 by the Enterprise for the 

Americas Initiative Act, Public Law 

102–532, 7 U.S.C. 5404. Implementing 

authority was delegated to the 

Administrator of EPA under Executive 

Order 12916. The GNEB is charged by 

statute with submitting an annual report 

to the President on the need for 

implementation of environmental and 

infrastructure projects within the states 

of the United States contiguous to 

Mexico. The statute calls for the GNEB 

to have representatives from U.S. 

Government agencies; the governments 

of the states of Arizona, California, New 

Mexico and Texas; and tribal and 

private organizations with experience in 

environmental and infrastructure issues 

along the U.S./Mexico Border. Members 

are appointed by the EPA Administrator 

for two year terms with the possibility 

of reappointment. The GNEB meets 

approximately three times annually 

either in person or via video/

teleconference. The average workload 

for committee members is 

approximately 10 to 15 hours per 

month. Members serve on the 

committees in a voluntary capacity. 

Although we are unable to offer 

compensation or an honorarium, 

members may receive travel and per 

diem allowances, according to 

applicable federal travel regulations. 

The EPA is seeking nominations from a 

variety of nongovernmental interests 

along the U.S.-Mexico border from the 

private sector, including representatives 

from business, academia, environmental 

groups, health groups, ranching and 

grazing, energy, financial, and other 

relevant sectors. EPA values and 

welcomes diversity. In an effort to 

obtain nominations of diverse 

candidates, EPA encourages 

nominations of women and men of all 

racial and ethnic groups. 

The following criteria will be used to 

evaluate nominees: 

• Background and experiences that 

would help members contribute to the 

diversity of perspectives on the 

committee (e.g., geographic, economic, 

social, cultural, educational, and other 

considerations). 

• Representative of a sector or group 

that helps to shape border-region 

environmental policy or representatives 

of a group that is affected by border 

region environmental policy. 

• Has extensive professional 

knowledge and experience with the 

particular issues that the GNEB 

examines (i.e. environmental and 

infrastructure issues along the U.S.- 

Mexico border), including the binational dimension of these issues. 

• Bring senior level experience that 

will fill a need of the GNEB in bringing 

a new and relevant dimension to its 

deliberations. 

• Possesses a demonstrated ability to 

work in a consensus building process 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES