### 65570 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). VII. Congressional Review Act

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

Dated: October 17, 2013. Lois Rossi, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

**PART 180—[AMENDED]**

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

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

■ 2. In § 180.433, add alphabetically the following commodities to the table in paragraph (a) to read as follows:

**§ 180.433 Fomesafen; tolerance for residues.** 

(a) General. * * *

Commodity Parts per million

*****

Bean, lima, succulent ............... 0.05

*****

Cantaloupe ............................... 0.025

*****

Cucumber ................................. 0.025 Pea, succulent .......................... 0.025

*****

Pumpkin .................................... 0.025

*****

Soybean, vegetable, succulent 0.05 Squash, summer ...................... 0.025 Squash, winter .......................... 0.025 Commodity Parts per million

*****

Watermelon .............................. 0.025

* * * * * [FR Doc. 2013–25984 Filed 10–31–13; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 721**

**[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2008–0918; FRL–9901–97]**

**RIN 2070–AB27**

**Modification of Significant New Uses of 1-Propene, 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro** 

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA is finalizing an amendment to the significant new use rule (SNUR) for the chemical substance identified as 1-Propene, 2,3,3,3- tetrafluoro-, which was the subject of premanufacture notice (PMN) P–07– 601. This action amends the SNUR to allow the manufacture and processing for certain uses without requiring a significant new use notice (SNUN). EPA is finalizing this amendment based on review of newly submitted exposure and toxicity data.

**DATES :**  This final rule is effective December 2, 2013.

**ADDRESSES :**  The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2008–0918 is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566–0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http:// www.epa.gov/dockets.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  For technical information contact: Jim Alwood, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (202) 564–8974; email address: alwood.jim@epa.gov.

For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554– 1404; email address: TSCA-Hotline@
epa.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  I. Does this action apply to me?

You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture, process, or use the chemical substance identified as 1-Propene, 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro- (PMN P–07–601). Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:

• Manufacturers or processors of the subject chemical substance (NAICS codes 325 and 324110), e.g., chemical manufacturers and petroleum refineries.

This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in § 721.5. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed under **FOR**
**FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT**

.

This action may also affect certain entities through pre-existing import certification and export notification rules under TSCA. Chemical importers are subject to the TSCA section 13 (15 U.S.C. 2612) import certification requirements promulgated at 19 CFR 12.118 through 12.127, and 19 CFR 127.28. Chemical importers must certify that the shipment of the chemical substance complies with all applicable rules and orders under TSCA. Importers of chemicals subject to a SNUR must certify their compliance with the SNUR requirements. The EPA policy in support of import certification appears at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B. In addition, any persons who export or intend to export the chemical substance that is the subject of a proposed or final SNUR are subject to the export notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b) (15 U.S.C. 2611(b)) (see § 721.20), and must comply with the export notification requirements in 40 CFR part 707, subpart D.


### 65571 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

II. Background A. What action is the agency taking?

EPA is finalizing an amendment to the SNUR for the chemical substance identified as 1-Propene, 2,3,3,3- tetrafluoro-, (PMN P–07–601; CAS No. 754–12–1; which is also identified by the trade name HFO–1234yf), codified at 40 CFR 721.10182. This final action removes the requirement to notify EPA at least 90 days prior to the manufacture or processing of the chemical substance for the consumer use to recharge the motor vehicle air conditioning systems in passenger cars and vehicles in which the original charging of motor vehicle air conditioning systems with the PMN substance was done by the motor vehicle.

This rule was proposed in the Federal Register issue of May 31, 2013 (78 FR 32617) (FRL–9387–7). EPA received three public comments supporting the proposed modification. One of the commenters also noted a potential ambiguity in the proposed regulatory text. Part of the proposed regulatory text would identify a significant new use as ‘‘use in consumer products other than products used to recharge the motor vehicle air conditioning systems in passenger cars and vehicles in which the charging of motor vehicle air conditioning systems with the PMN substance was done by the motor vehicle original equipment manufacturer (OEM)’’. The commenter stated this could be construed to allow only one recharge of automotive air conditioning systems originally charged with HFO–1234yf. To clarify this ambiguity the commenter suggested revising the proposed text to ‘‘use in consumer products other than products used to recharge the motor vehicle air conditioning systems in passenger cars and vehicles in which the original charging of motor vehicle air conditioning systems with the PMN substance was done by the motor vehicle OEM’’ (the proposed revision is in italics). The commenter also suggested a similar change to the regulatory text for the significant new use designation for commercial use. EPA agrees with this clarification that the regulatory text is not intended to allow only one recharge of automotive air conditioning systems originally charged with HFO–1234yf. Therefore, the Agency is issuing a final amended SNUR, that:

1. No longer requires notification prior to the manufacture or processing for the consumer use to recharge the motor vehicle air conditioning systems in passenger cars and vehicles in which the original charging of motor vehicle air conditioning systems with the PMN substance was done by the motor vehicle OEM.

2. Clarifies the language in the regulatory text that manufacture and processing for use as a refrigerant in motor vehicle air conditioning systems in new passenger cars and vehicles as reported in the original PMN is not a significant new use.

3. Clarifies the language in the regulatory text for commercial and consumer use that it is not intended to allow only one recharge of automotive air conditioning systems originally charged with HFO–1234yf. B. What is the agency’s authority for taking this action?

Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to determine that a use of a chemical substance is a ‘‘significant new use.’’ EPA must make this determination by rule after considering all relevant factors, including the four bulleted TSCA section 5(a)(2) factors, listed in Unit IV. of this document. Once EPA determines that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use, TSCA section 5(a)(1)(B) requires persons to submit a significant new use notice (SNUN) to EPA at least 90 days before they manufacture or process the chemical substance for that use. Persons who must report are described in § 721.5.

III. Rationale for the Rule

During review of PMN P–07–601, the chemical substance identified as 1- Propene, 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-, EPA determined that one or more of the criteria of concern established at § 721.170 were met and regulation under section 5(a)(2) of TSCA was warranted. The basis for such criteria of concern is outlined in Unit II.A. of the proposed rule and in the Federal Register document of June 26, 1990 (55 FR 26102). Based on these findings, a SNUR was promulgated pursuant to § 721.170.

After the review of new test data and information subsequent to issuance of the SNUR (see Unit II.A of the proposed rule), and consideration of the factors included in TSCA section 5(a)(2) (see Unit IV.), EPA determined that the concern criteria in § 721.170(b) are no longer met for the consumer use in the recharge of motor vehicle air conditioning systems originally charged with the PMN substance by the motor vehicle OEM. IV. Significant New Use Determination

Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA states that EPA’s determination that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use must be made after consideration of all relevant factors, including:

• The projected volume of manufacturing and processing of a chemical substance.

• The extent to which a use changes the type or form of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.

• The extent to which a use increases the magnitude and duration of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.

• The reasonably anticipated manner and methods of manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and disposal of a chemical substance.

In addition to these factors enumerated in TSCA section 5(a)(2), the statute authorizes EPA to consider any other relevant factors. To determine that the consumer use in the recharge of motor vehicle air conditioning systems originally charged with the PMN substance by the motor vehicle OEM would not constitute a significant new use for the chemical substance identified as 1-Propene, 2,3,3,3- tetrafluoro-, (PMN P–07–601), EPA considered relevant information about the toxicity of the chemical substance, likely human exposures and environmental releases associated with possible uses, taking into consideration the four bulleted TSCA section 5(a)(2) factors listed in this unit. V. Economic Analysis

EPA evaluated the potential costs of establishing SNUN requirements for potential manufacturers and processors of the chemical substance during the development of the direct final rule. The Agency’s complete Economic Analysis is available in the docket under docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2008–0918. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866

This action modifies a SNUR for a chemical substance that is the subject of a PMN. 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). B. Paperwork Reduction Act

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., an Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB approval under PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays a currently valid OMB


### 65572 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register , are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and included on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. EPA has amended the table in 40 CFR part 9 to list the OMB approval number for the information collection requirements contained in this rule. This listing of the OMB control numbers and their subsequent codification in the CFR satisfies the display requirements of PRA and OMB’s implementing regulations at 5 CFR part
1320.

The information collection requirements related to this action have already been approved by OMB pursuant to PRA under OMB control number 2070–0012 (EPA ICR No. 574). This action does not impose any burden requiring additional OMB approval. If an entity were to submit a SNUN to the Agency, the annual burden is estimated to average between 30 and 170 hours per response. This burden estimate includes the time needed to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain the data needed, and complete, review, and submit the required SNUN.

Send any comments about the accuracy of the burden estimate, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques, to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, Office of Environmental Information (2822T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. Please remember to include the OMB control number in any correspondence, but do not submit any completed forms to this address. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

On February 18, 2012, EPA certified pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), that promulgation of a SNUR does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities where the following are true:

1. A significant number of SNUNs would not be submitted by small entities in response to the SNUR.

2. The SNUN submitted by any small entity would not cost significantly more than $8,300.

A copy of that certification is available in the docket for this rule.

This rule is within the scope of the February 18, 2012 certification. Based on the Economic Analysis discussed in Unit V. and EPA’s experience promulgating SNURs (discussed in the certification), EPA believes that the following are true:

• A significant number of SNUNs would not be submitted by small entities in response to the SNUR.

• Submission of the SNUN would not cost any small entity significantly more than $8,300. Therefore, the promulgation of the SNUR would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Based on EPA’s experience with proposing and finalizing SNURs, State, local, and Tribal governments have not been impacted by these rulemakings, and EPA does not have any reasons to believe that any State, local, or Tribal government will be impacted by this final rule. As such, EPA has determined that this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty, contain any unfunded mandate, or otherwise have any affect on small governments subject to the requirements of sections 202, 203, 204, or 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104–4).

E. Executive Order 13132

This action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).

F. Executive Order 13175

This final rule does not have Tribal implications because it is not expected to have substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes. This final rule does not significantly nor uniquely affect the communities of Indian Tribal governments, nor does it involve or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this final rule.

G. Executive Order 13045

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because this is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and this action does not address environmental health or safety risks disproportionately affecting children. H. Executive Order 13211 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), because this action is not expected to affect energy supply, distribution, or use and because this action is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

In addition, since this action does not involve any technical standards, section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), does not apply to this action.
J. Executive Order 12898

This action does not entail special considerations of environmental justice related issues as delineated by Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). VII. Congressional Review Act

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 721

Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: October 24, 2013. Maria J. Doa, Director, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.

Therefore, 40 CFR part 721 is amended as follows:

**PART 721—[AMENDED]**

■ 1. The authority citation for part 721 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2604, 2607, and 2625(c).

■ 2. In § 721.10182, revise paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2)(i) to read as follows:

**§ 721.10182 1-Propene, 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-.**

(a) * * * (1) The chemical substance identified as 1-propene, 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro- (PMN


### 65573 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

P–07–601; CAS No. 754–12–1) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

(2) * * * (i) Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities. A significant new use is use other than as a refrigerant in motor vehicle air conditioning systems in new passenger cars and vehicles (i.e., as defined in 40 CFR 82.32(c) and (d)); § 721.80(m) (commercial use other than in passenger cars and vehicles in which the original charging of motor vehicle air conditioning systems with the PMN substance was done by the motor vehicle original equipment manufacturer (OEM)); § 721.80(o) (use in consumer products other than products used to recharge the motor vehicle air conditioning systems in passenger cars and vehicles in which the original charging of motor vehicle air conditioning systems with the PMN substance was done by the motor vehicle OEM).

* * * * * [FR Doc. 2013–25981 Filed 10–31–13; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR**

**Fish and Wildlife Service**

**50 CFR Part 20**

**[Docket Nos. FWS–R9–MB–2012–0028 and FWS–R9–MB–2012–0038; FF09M21200–**  **134–FXMB1231099BPP0]**

**RIN 1018–AY61, 1018–AY66**

**Migratory Bird Hunting; Application for Approval of Copper-Clad Iron Shot and**  **Fluoropolymer Shot Coatings as Nontoxic for Waterfowl Hunting** 

**AGENCY :**  Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

**ACTION :**  Final rule; availability of environmental assessments.

**SUMMARY :**  We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, approve copper-clad iron shot and fluoropolymer coatings for hunting waterfowl and coots. We published a proposed rule for approval of copper-clad iron shot and fluoropolymer coatings in the Federal Register on September 26, 2012 (77 FR 59158). We considered comments on the proposed rule, and we believe that neither the shot nor the coatings will pose toxicity hazards to fish or wildlife or their habitats.

**DATES :**  This rule is effective December 2,
2013.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Dr. George Allen, at 703–358–1825. **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  Background

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (Act) (16 U.S.C. 703–712 and 16 U.S.C. 742 a–j) implements migratory bird treaties between the United States and Great Britain for Canada (1916 and 1996 as amended), Mexico (1936 and 1972 as amended), Japan (1972 and 1974 as amended), and Russia (then the Soviet Union 1978). These treaties protect most migratory bird species from take, except as permitted under the Act, which authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to regulate take of migratory birds in the United States. Under this authority, we control the hunting of migratory game birds through regulations in 50 CFR part 20. We prohibit the use of shot types other than those listed in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 20.21(j) for hunting waterfowl and coots and any species that make up aggregate bag limits.

Deposition of toxic shot and release of toxic shot components in waterfowl hunting locations are potentially harmful to many organisms. Research has shown that ingested spent lead shot causes significant mortality in migratory birds. Since the mid-1970s, we have sought to identify types of shot for waterfowl hunting that are not toxic to migratory birds or other wildlife when ingested. We continue to review shot types and shot coatings submitted for approval as nontoxic.

We addressed lead poisoning in waterfowl in an environmental impact statement (EIS) in 1976, and again in a 1986 supplemental EIS. The 1986 document provided the scientific justification for a ban on the use of lead shot and the subsequent approval of steel shot for hunting waterfowl and coots that began that year, with a complete ban of lead for waterfowl and coot hunting in 1991. We have continued to consider other potential candidates for approval as nontoxic shot. We are obligated to review applications for approval of alternative shot types as nontoxic for hunting waterfowl and coots.

Many hunters believe that some nontoxic shot types compare poorly to lead and may damage some shotgun barrels. A small and decreasing percentage of hunters have not complied with nontoxic shot regulations. Allowing use of additional nontoxic shot types may encourage greater hunter compliance and participation with nontoxic shot requirements and discourage the use of lead shot. The use of nontoxic shot for waterfowl hunting increased after the ban on lead shot, but we believe that compliance will continue to increase with the availability and approval of other nontoxic shot types. Increased use of nontoxic shot will enhance protection of migratory waterfowl and their habitats. Copper-Clad Iron Shot

Copper-clad iron shot is a composite in which copper is thermo-mechanically bonded to centerless-ground steel rod, then mechanically worked to final wire and shot configurations. Copper-clad iron shot may be produced with a variety of different proportions of copper and iron, ranging from 16 to 44.41% by weight copper, with a density of approximately 8.3 grams per cubic centimeter. Environ-Metal asserts that ‘‘there is little variability in composition to be expected’’ in production of the shot. Environ-Metal expects to produce about 50,000 pounds of copper-clad iron shot per year. Fluoropolymer Coatings

Spectra Shot is cut wire shotgun shot (steel shot) with a proprietary shot coating. Four different colors of the coated shot will be marketed as Spectra ShotTM Blue, Spectra ShotTM Green, Spectra Shot TM Orange, and Spectra ShotTM Yellow. The thickness of the coating will be 3 to 10 microns, with a corresponding weight per shot as follows: Spectra Shot TM Blue—0.209 milligram per shot; Spectra Shot TM Green—0.732 milligram per shot; Spectra Shot TM Orange—0.942 milligram per shot; and Spectra ShotTM Yellow—1.779 milligrams per shot. Spectra Shot expects annual use of the coated shot in hunting migratory birds in the United States to be 98,000 pounds.

Polyamide-imide copolymer, polytetrafluoroethylene, amorphous fumed silica, and methylphenyl polysiloxane are common to all Spectra ShotTM colors and make up the bulk of the coating. The pigments vary between coatings, and comprise 13.8% to 20.5% by weight of the dry film. Effects of the Approval on Migratory Waterfowl

Allowing use of additional nontoxic shot types may encourage greater hunter compliance and participation with nontoxic shot requirements and discourage the use of lead shot. Furnishing additional approved nontoxic shot types and nontoxic coatings likely will further reduce the use of lead shot. Thus, approving additional nontoxic shot types and coatings will likely have no effect on waterfowl and wetland habitats.