Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 75111 

for residues of the herbicide, endothall, 

in or on cattle, fat from 0.01 to 0.05 

ppm; cattle, kidney from 0.20 to 0.06 

ppm; cattle, liver from 0.10 to 0.05 ppm; 

cattle, meat from 0.03 to 0.05 ppm; goat, 

fat from 0.005 to 0.05 ppm; goat, kidney 

from 0.15 to 0.06 ppm; goat, meat from 

0.015 to 0.05 ppm; hog, fat from 0.005 

to 0.05 ppm; hog, kidney from 0.10 to 

0.06 ppm; hog, meat from 0.01 to 0.05 

ppm; milk from 0.03 to 0.01 ppm; 

poultry, fat from 0.015 to 0.05 ppm; 

poultry, meat from 0.015 to 0.05 ppm; 

poultry, meat byproducts from 0.2 to 

0.05 ppm; sheep, fat from 0.005 to 0.05 

ppm; sheep, kidney from 0.15 to 0.06 

ppm; and sheep, meat from 0.015 to 

0.05 ppm. The analytical method # KP– 

245R0 using HPLC/MS/MS is used to 

measure and evaluate the chemical 

endothall. Contact: RD. 

New Tolerance Exemption 

1. PP 3F8221. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2014– 

0560). SciReg International on behalf of 

Andermatt Biocontrol AG., 

Stahlermatten 6 CH–6146, Grossdietwil, 

Switzerland, requests to establish an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance for residues of the microbial 

pesticide, Bacillus amyloliquefaciens 

strain FZB42, in or on all food 

commodities. The pesticide in intended 

to control soil borne diseases. The 

petitioner believes no analytical method 

is needed because Bacillus 

amyloliquefaciens strain FZB42 is 

virtually non-toxic and is not 

pathogenic. Andermatt Biocontrol AG 

is, therefore, submitting a petition to 

establish an exemption from the 

requirement of a tolerance and an 

analytical method is not required. 

Contact: BPPD. 

2. PP 4F8251. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2014– 

0457). J.R. Simplot Company, 5369 W. 

Irving St., Boise, IN 83706, requests to 

establish an exemption from the 

requirement of a tolerance for residues 

of the plant incorporated protectant 

(PIP), Potato Late Blight Resistance Gene 

(also known as Rpi-vnt1), in or on 

potato. The petitioner believes no 

analytical method is needed because the 

petitioner is seeking an exemption from 

the requirement of a tolerance. Contact: 

BPPD. 

3. PP 4F8275. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2014– 

0454). Monsanto Company, 800 North 

Lindbergh Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63167, 

requests to establish an exemption from 

the requirement of a tolerance for 

residues of the plant-incorporated 

protectant (PIP), Bacillus thuringiensis 

Cry1A.105 protein, in or on soybean. 

The petitioner believes no analytical 

method is needed because the petitioner 

is seeking an exemption from the 

requirement of a tolerance. Contact: 

BPPD. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Agricultural commodities, Feed 

additives, Food additives, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: December 10, 2014. 

Daniel J. Rosenblatt, 

Acting Director, Registration Division, Office 

of Pesticide Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2014–29428 Filed 12–16–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 721 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2014–0702; FRL–9919–93] 

RIN 2070–AB27 

Proposed Revocation of Significant 

New Uses of Metal Salts of Complex 

Inorganic Acids 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to revoke 

the significant new use rule (SNUR) 

promulgated under section 5(a)(2) of the 

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 

for two chemical substances which were 

identified generically as metal salts of 

complex inorganic oxyacids which were 

the subject of premanufacture notices 

(PMNs) P–89–576 and P–89–577. EPA 

issued a SNUR based on a TSCA section 

5(e) consent order designating certain 

activities as significant new uses. EPA 

has received test data for the chemical 

substances and is proposing to revoke 

the SNUR. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 16, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2014–0702, 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: Document Control Office 

(7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 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. 

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. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you manufacture 

(including import), process, or use the 

chemical substances contained in this 

proposed rule. 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: 

• Manufacturers or processors of the 

chemical substances (NAICS codes 325 

and 324110), e.g., chemical 

manufacturing and petroleum refineries. 

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. Importers 

of the chemical, the subject of this 

action, would no longer be required to 

certify compliance with the SNUR 

requirements if the revocation becomes 

effective. In addition, if this proposed 

SNUR revocation becomes effective, 

persons who export or intend to export 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
75112 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

the chemical that is the subject of this 

action would no longer be subject to the 

TSCA section 12(b)(15 U.S.C. 2611(b) 

export notification requirements at 40 

CFR part 707, that are currently 

triggered by the SNUR. 

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 preparing and submitting your 

comments, see the commenting tips at 

http://www.epa.gov/dockets/

comments.html. 

II. Background 

A. What action is the agency taking? 

In the Federal Register of August 15, 

1990 (55 FR 33305) (FRL–3741–8), EPA 

promulgated a SNUR at 40 CFR 

721.4680 for the chemical substances 

identified generically as metal salts of 

complex inorganic oxyacids (PMNs P– 

89–576 and P–89–577). That SNUR 

designated certain activities as 

significant new uses based on a TSCA 

section 5(e) consent order for the PMNs 

that was issued under TSCA sections 

5(e)(1)(A)(i), and 5(e)(1)(A)(ii)(II) based 

on a finding that the chemical 

substances may be produced in 

substantial quantities and there may be 

significant (or substantial) human 

exposure to the chemical substances. 

EPA has received human health testing 

for the chemical substances and, based 

on its review of these data, EPA now 

proposes to revoke the SNUR pursuant 

to § 721.185. In this unit, EPA provides 

a brief description of these chemical 

substances, including the PMN 

numbers, generic chemical names, the 

Federal Register publication date and 

citation, the docket ID number, the basis 

for revoking the SNUR under § 721.185, 

and the CFR citation of the SNUR. 

PMN Numbers P–89–576 and P–89–577 

Chemical name: Metal salts of 

complex inorganic oxyacids (generic). 

CAS number: Not available. 

Federal Register publication date and 

citation: August 15, 1990 (55 FR 

33305).Basis for revocation of SNUR: 

EPA issued a SNUR for these chemical 

substances that designated certain 

activities as significant new uses based 

on a TSCA section 5(e) consent order for 

the PMNs that was issued under TSCA 

sections 5(e)(1)(A)(i), and 

5(e)(1)(A)(ii)(II) based on a finding that 

the chemical substances may be 

produced in substantial quantities and 

there may be significant (or substantial) 

human exposure to the chemical 

substances. The SNUR required 

notification before exceeding the 

production volume limit in the TSCA 

section 5(e) consent order. 

Subsequently, a manufacturer of the 

chemical substances petitioned EPA to 

revoke the SNUR based on the results of 

the submitted acute dermal study and a 

28-day oral toxicity study, for P–89–576 

which demonstrated no adverse health 

effects. Based on the results of the 

testing, EPA determined that both 

substances have inherently low toxicity. 

Therefore, EPA finds that for activities 

involving the chemical substances that 

have been designated as significant new 

uses pending the completion of testing, 

adequate test data developed in 

accordance with applicable procedures 

and criteria have been submitted to 

EPA. Therefore, EPA proposes that the 

SNUR for these chemical substances be 

revoked pursuant to § 721.185(a)(6). 

CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.4680 

B. What is the agency’s authority for 

taking this action? 

Upon conclusion of the review for P– 

89–576 and P–89–577 in 1990, EPA 

designated certain activities as 

significant new uses based on a TSCA 

section 5(e) consent order for the PMNs 

that was issued under TSCA sections 

5(e)(1)(A)(i), and 5(e)(1)(A)(ii)(II) based 

on a finding that the chemical 

substances may be produced in 

substantial quantities and there may be 

significant (or substantial) human 

exposure to the chemical substances. 

Under § 721.185, EPA may at any time 

revoke a SNUR for a chemical substance 

which has been added to subpart E of 

40 CFR part 721 if EPA makes one of the 

determinations set forth in 

§ 721.185(a)(1) through (6). Revocation 

may occur on EPA’s initiative or in 

response to a written request. Under 

§ 721.185(b)(3), if EPA concludes that a 

SNUR should be revoked, the Agency 

will propose the changes in the Federal 

Register, briefly describe the grounds 

for the action, and provide interested 

parties an opportunity to comment. 

EPA has determined that the criteria 

set forth in § 721.185(a)(6) have been 

satisfied for the chemical substances; 

therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke 

the SNUR for these chemical 

substances. The significant new use 

notification and the recordkeeping 

requirements at 40 CFR 721.4680 would 

terminate if and when this proposed 

revocation becomes effective. In 

addition, export notification under 

TSCA section 12(b) and 40 CFR part 

707, subpart D, triggered by the SNUR 

would no longer be required. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This proposed rule would revoke or 

eliminate an existing regulatory 

requirement and does not contain any 

new or amended requirements. As such, 

the Agency has determined that this 

proposed SNUR revocation would not 

have any adverse impacts, economic or 

otherwise. 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted these types of 

regulatory actions from review under 

Executive Order 12866, entitled 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58 

FR 51735, October 4, 1993). This action 

does not contain any information 

collections subject to approval under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), (44 

U.S.C.3501 et seq.). Since this action 

eliminates a reporting requirement, the 

Agency certifies pursuant to section 

605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA) (5 U.S.C.601 et seq.), that this 

SNUR revocation would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

For the same reasons, this action does 

not require any action under Title II of 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) (Pub.L. 

104–4). This action has neither 

Federalism implications, because it 

would not have substantial direct effects 

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), nor Tribal implications, because 

it would not have substantial direct 

effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on 

the relationship between the Federal 

Government and Indian Tribes, or on 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian Tribes, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175 

entitled ‘‘Consultation and Coordination 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 75113 

with Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000). 

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 under Executive Order 

12866, and it does not address 

environmental health or safety risks 

disproportionately affecting children. 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 1311, 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. Because this action 

does not involve any technical 

standards, section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), section 12(d) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note), does not apply to this 

action. This action does not involve 

special considerations of environmental 

justice related issues as required by 

Executive Order 12898 entitled ‘‘Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 721 

Environmental protection, Chemicals, 

Hazardous substances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: December 11, 2014. 

Maria J. Doa, 

Director, Chemical Control Division, Office 

of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. 

Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR 

part 721 be 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). 

§ 721.4680 [Removed] 

■ 2. Remove § 721.4680. 

[FR Doc. 2014–29575 Filed 12–16–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MB Docket No. 12–271; RM–11678; DA 14– 

1683] 

Radio Broadcasting Services; Pike 

Road, AL 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposal rule; denial. 

SUMMARY: The Audio Division denies 

the Petition for Rule Making filed by 

Alatron Corporation, Inc., proposing the 

allotment of FM Channel 228A at Pike 

Road, Alabama. The petition was denied 

because a counterproposal, consisting of 

three minor change applications, was 

granted instead: Application of 

Southeast Alabama Broadcasters, LLC, 

to upgrade the facilities of Station 

WDLA(FM), to 280C2, Fort Rucker, 

Alabama. The application of Gulf South 

Communications, Inc., to change the 

community of license for Station 

WDJR(FM), to Hartford, Alabama, and 

the application of Gulf South 

Communications, Inc., to change the 

channel and community of license for 

Station WDBT(FM), to Channel 228A, 

Hope Hull, Alabama. The license for 

Station WAAO–FM, Andalusia, 

Alabama will be modified to specify 

operation on Channel 229A. 

DATES: This is a synopsis of the Report 

and Order, MB Docket No. 12–271, 

adopted November 20, 2014, and 

released November 21, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Deborah A. Dupont, Media Bureau, 

(202) 418–2700. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Report and Order, MB 

Docket No. 12–271, adopted November 

20, 2014, and released November 21, 

2014. The full text of this Commission 

decision is available for inspection and 

copying during normal business hours 

in the FCC’s Reference Information 

Center at Portals II, CY–A257, 445 12th 

Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. This 

document may also be purchased from 

the Commission’s duplicating 

contractors, Best Copy and Printing, 

Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room CY– 

B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 

1–800–378–3160 or via email 

www.BCPIWEB.com. This document 

does not contain information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104– 

13. This document is not subject to the 

Congressional Review Act. (The 

Commission is not required to submit a 

copy of this Report and Order to 

Government Accountability Office, 

pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) because 

no rule changes were made). 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Nazifa Sawez, 

Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media 

Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 2014–29446 Filed 12–16–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS