54506 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 16, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the proposed rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking action. This action 

which satisfies certain infrastructure 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the 

CAA for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

for the District may not be challenged 

later in proceedings to enforce its 

requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: August 4, 2016. 

Shawn M. Garvin, 

Regional Administrator, Region III. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart J—District of Columbia 

In § 52.470, the table in paragraph (e) 

is amended by adding an entry for 

Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS to read as follows: 

§ 52.470 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

Name of non-regulatory 

SIP revision 

Applicable geographic 

area 

State submittal 

date EPA Approval date Additional explanation 

*******

Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS.

District of Columbia ..... 12/28/15 8/16/16, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

This action addresses the following CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(I), D(i)(II), 

(E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). PSD 

related portions are addressed by FIP in 40 

CFR 52.499. 

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2016–19390 Filed 8–15–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2016–0210; FRL–9950–71– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Case-by-Case Reasonably Available 

Control Technology for the 2008 8- 

Hour Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action to approve a revision to the 

Commonwealth of Virginia’s state 

implementation plan (SIP). The SIP 

revision includes revised Virginia 

regulations which incorporate 

compliance dates necessary for 

implementing planning requirements 

for the 2008 8-hour ozone national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). 

Specifically, the SIP revision includes 

revised Virginia regulations which 

added notification and compliance 

dates for sources seeking case-by-case 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT) determinations required under 

the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is 

approving this revision to the Virginia 

SIP in accordance with the requirements 

of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: This rule is effective on October 

17, 2016 without further notice, unless 

EPA receives adverse written comment 

by September 15, 2016. If EPA receives 

such comments, it will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the 

Federal Register and inform the public 

that the rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03– 

OAR–2016–0210 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. For 

comments submitted at Regulations.gov, 

follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. Once submitted, 

comments cannot be edited or removed 

from Regulations.gov. For either manner 

of submission, the EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

confidential business information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Leslie Jones Doherty, (215) 814–3409, or 

by email at jones.leslie@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On February 5, 2016, the 

Commonwealth of Virginia, through the 

Virginia Department of Environmental 

Quality (VADEQ), submitted a formal 

revision to the Virginia SIP. The SIP 

revision submittal includes revised 

provisions within 9VAC5 Chapter 40, 

Existing Stationary Sources, to include 

revised notification and compliance 

dates for sources subject to RACT for the 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS to submit a 

case-by-case RACT demonstration to 

VADEQ. 

On March 27, 2008, EPA revised the 

8-hour ozone standard to a new 0.075 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 16, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 54507 

1Any stationary source which emits or has the 

potential to emit at least 50 tons per year (tpy) of 

VOCs or 100 tpy of NOX shall be considered a major 

stationary source subject to attainment planning 

requirements, including RACT, as if the area were 

a moderate nonattainment area. See CAA sections 

182(b) and (f), 184(b), and 302. 

parts per million (ppm) level (73 FR 

16436). On May 21, 2012, EPA finalized 

designations for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS (77 FR 30087) in which the 

Washington, DC–MD–VA area was 

designated marginal nonattainment. See 

40 CFR 81.347. The northern portion of 

Virginia is also part of the Metropolitan 

Statistical Area of the District Columbia 

which is in the ozone transport region 

(OTR) established under section 184(a) 

of the CAA. Pursuant to section 184(b) 

of the CAA, all areas in the OTR must 

comply with the CAA requirements for 

a moderate nonattainment area which 

includes RACT requirements. On March 

6, 2015, EPA published a final 

implementation rule (80 FR 12264) 

which specifies the compliance date 

(January 1, 2017) by which RACT 

measures must be implemented for the 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 40 CFR 

51.1112. Thus, the northern portion of 

Virginia which is within the OTR must 

implement RACT per CAA sections 172 

and 182 for major stationary sources of 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs).1

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

This SIP revision includes revised 

9VAC5–40–7400 and 9VAC5–40–7420 

which incorporate EPA’s compliance 

date for implementation of RACT 

requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS (i.e., January 1, 2017) into 

VADEQ’s regulations. The SIP revision 

consists of amended versions of 

9VAC5–40–7400 and 9VAC5–40–7420, 

which were previously included in the 

Virginia SIP, to add notification and 

compliance dates for RACT case-by-case 

determinations to meet CAA deadlines 

for implementing RACT for major 

stationary sources of NOX and VOC 

within Virginia for the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. These provisions now 

include the RACT compliance date 

stated in EPA’s implementation rule for 

the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The 

notification date included in the 

Virginia regulations is the date by which 

facilities subject to RACT for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS must notify the State Air 

Pollution Control Board of their 

applicability status, commit to making a 

RACT determination, and provide an 

acceptable schedule for implementing 

the proposed RACT determination so 

the source achieves compliance with the 

RACT emission standard as 

expeditiously as possible, but no later 

than the compliance date of January 1, 

2017 as required by CAA. 

Specifically, in section 9VAC5–40– 

7400, pertaining to stationary sources of 

VOCs, Table 4–51B was amended to add 

the 2008 8-hour ozone standard, 

emissions control area, source threshold 

limit in tpy which subjects sources to 

VOC RACT, date for submission of 

notification to VADEQ, and the 

compliance date to implement RACT. 

Table 1, in this rulemaking action, 

describes Table 4–51B, Notification and 

Compliance Dates for Facilities Located 

in VOC Emissions Control Areas. 

TABLE 1—NOTIFICATION AND COMPLIANCE DATES FOR FACILITIES LOCATED IN VOC EMISSIONS CONTROL AREAS

Standard Emissions control area Source threshold Notification date Compliance date 

1997 (0.08 ppm) ................ Northern Virginia ............... ≥50 tpy .............................. March 1, 2007 ................... April 1, 2009. 

2008 (0.075 ppm) .............. Northern Virginia ............... ≥50 tpy .............................. February 1, 2016 .............. January 1, 2017. 

In section 9VAC5–40–7420, 

pertaining to stationary sources of NOX, 

Table 4–51E and Table 4–51F were 

amended to include the 2008 8-hour 

ozone standard, emissions control area, 

source threshold limit in tpy which 

subjects sources to NOX RACT, date for 

submission of notification to VADEQ, 

and compliance date to implement 

RACT. Table 2, of this rulemaking 

action, describes Table 4–51E for 

facilities in an emission control area 

where there is no applicable 

presumptive RACT. Table 3, of this 

rulemaking action describes Table 4– 

51F which pertains to facilities in an 

emission control area where 

presumptive RACT is defined or 

applicable. 

TABLE 2—NOTIFICATION AND COMPLIANCE DATES FOR FACILITIES LOCATED IN NOX EMISSIONS CONTROL AREAS FOR

WHICH THERE IS NO PRESUMPTIVE RACT 

Standard Emissions control area Source threshold Notification date Compliance date 

1997 (0.08 ppm) ................ Northern Virginia ............... ≥100 tpy ............................ March 1, 2007 ................... April 1, 2009 

2008 (0.075 ppm) .............. Northern Virginia ............... ≥100 tpy ............................ February 1, 2016 .............. January 1, 2017 

TABLE 3—NOTIFICATION AND COMPLIANCE DATES FOR FACILITIES LOCATED IN NOX EMISSIONS CONTROL AREAS FOR

WHICH PRESUMPTIVE RACT IS DEFINED

Standard Emissions control area Source threshold Notification date Compliance date 

1997 (0.08 ppm) ................ Northern Virginia ............... ≥100 tpy ............................ March 1, 2007 ................... April 1, 2009 

2008 (0.075 ppm) .............. Northern Virginia ............... ≥100 tpy ............................ February 1, 2016 .............. January 1, 2017 

The amendments to 9VAC5–40–7400 

and 9VAC5–40–7420 are consistent 

with the federal requirements for RACT 

implementation for the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS contained within EPA’s 

final implementation rule for this 

NAAQS and with CAA requirements for 

RACT in CAA sections 172, 182, and 

184. See 80 FR 12264. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving the February 5, 

2016 SIP submission from Virginia 

which includes amended Virginia 

regulations to include notification and 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
54508 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 16, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

compliance dates for the submission 

and implementation of case-by-case 

RACT to address requirements for the 

2008 8-hour NAAQS. EPA is publishing 

this rule without prior proposal because 

EPA views this as a noncontroversial 

amendment and anticipates no adverse 

comment. However, in the ‘‘Proposed 

Rules’’ section of today’s Federal 

Register, EPA is publishing a separate 

document that will serve as the proposal 

to approve the SIP revision if adverse 

comments are filed. This rule will be 

effective on October 17, 2016 without 

further notice unless EPA receives 

adverse comment by September 15, 

2016. If EPA receives adverse comment, 

EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in 

the Federal Register informing the 

public that the rule will not take effect. 

EPA will address all public comments 

in a subsequent final rule based on the 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period on this action. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

must do so at this time. Please note that 

if EPA receives adverse comment on an 

amendment, paragraph, or section of 

this rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

EPA may adopt as final those provisions 

of the rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. 

IV. General Information Pertaining to 

SIP Submittals From the 

Commonwealth of Virginia 

In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation 

that provides, subject to certain 

conditions, for an environmental 

assessment (audit) ‘‘privilege’’ for 

voluntary compliance evaluations 

performed by a regulated entity. The 

legislation further addresses the relative 

burden of proof for parties either 

asserting the privilege or seeking 

disclosure of documents for which the 

privilege is claimed. Virginia’s 

legislation also provides, subject to 

certain conditions, for a penalty waiver 

for violations of environmental laws 

when a regulated entity discovers such 

violations pursuant to a voluntary 

compliance evaluation and voluntarily 

discloses such violations to the 

Commonwealth and takes prompt and 

appropriate measures to remedy the 

violations. Virginia’s Voluntary 

Environmental Assessment Privilege 

Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, provides 

a privilege that protects from disclosure 

documents and information about the 

content of those documents that are the 

product of a voluntary environmental 

assessment. The Privilege Law does not 

extend to documents or information 

that: (1) Are generated or developed 

before the commencement of a 

voluntary environmental assessment; (2) 

are prepared independently of the 

assessment process; (3) demonstrate a 

clear, imminent and substantial danger 

to the public health or environment; or 

(4) are required by law. 

On January 12, 1998, the 

Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the 

Attorney General provided a legal 

opinion that states that the Privilege 

Law, Va. Code § 10.1–1198, precludes 

granting a privilege to documents and 

information ‘‘required by law,’’ 

including documents and information 

‘‘required by federal law to maintain 

program delegation, authorization or 

approval,’’ since Virginia must ‘‘enforce 

federally authorized environmental 

programs in a manner that is no less 

stringent than their federal counterparts. 

. . .’’ The opinion concludes that 

‘‘[r]egarding § 10.1–1198, therefore, 

documents or other information needed 

for civil or criminal enforcement under 

one of these programs could not be 

privileged because such documents and 

information are essential to pursuing 

enforcement in a manner required by 

federal law to maintain program 

delegation, authorization or approval.’’ 

Virginia’s Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 

10.1–1199, provides that ‘‘[t]o the extent 

consistent with requirements imposed 

by federal law,’’ any person making a 

voluntary disclosure of information to a 

state agency regarding a violation of an 

environmental statute, regulation, 

permit, or administrative order is 

granted immunity from administrative 

or civil penalty. The Attorney General’s 

January 12, 1998 opinion states that the 

quoted language renders this statute 

inapplicable to enforcement of any 

federally authorized programs, since 

‘‘no immunity could be afforded from 

administrative, civil, or criminal 

penalties because granting such 

immunity would not be consistent with 

federal law, which is one of the criteria 

for immunity.’’ 

Therefore, EPA has determined that 

Virginia’s Privilege and Immunity 

statutes will not preclude the 

Commonwealth from enforcing its 

program consistent with the federal 

requirements. In any event, because 

EPA has also determined that a state 

audit privilege and immunity law can 

affect only state enforcement and cannot 

have any impact on federal enforcement 

authorities, EPA may at any time invoke 

its authority under the CAA, including, 

for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 

or 213, to enforce the requirements or 

prohibitions of the state plan, 

independently of any state enforcement 

effort. In addition, citizen enforcement 

under section 304 of the CAA is 

likewise unaffected by this, or any, state 

audit privilege or immunity law. 

V. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rulemaking action, the EPA is 

finalizing regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, the EPA is finalizing the 

incorporation by reference of VADEQ 

regulations described in the 

amendments to 40 CFR 52 set forth 

below which added notification and 

compliance dates for sources seeking 

case-by-case RACT. The EPA has made, 

and will continue to make, these 

documents generally available 

electronically through 

www.regulations.gov and/or may be 

viewed at the appropriate EPA office 

(see the ADDRESSES section of this 

preamble for more information). 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 16, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 54509 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land as defined 

in 18 U.S.C. 1151 or in any other area 

where EPA or an Indian tribe has 

demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action 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. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by October 17, 2016. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the proposed rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking action. This action 

pertaining to submission and 

compliance dates for case-by-case RACT 

determinations in Virginia for the 2008 

8-hour ozone NAAQS may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: August 2, 2016. 

Shawn M. Garvin, 

Regional Administrator, Region III. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart VV—Virginia 

■ 2. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph 

(c) is amended by revising the entries 

for Sections 5–40–7400 and 5–40–7420 

under 9VAC5, Chapter 40, Part 2, 

Article 51 to read as follows: 

§ 52.2420 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA—APPROVED VIRGINIA REGULATIONS AND STATUTES

State citation Title/subject State effective 

date EPA approval date Explanation [former SIP citation] 

*******

9 VAC 5, Chapter 40 Existing Stationary Sources (Part IV) 

*******

Part 2 Emissions Standards 

*******

Article 51 Stationary Sources Subject to Case-by-Case Control Technology Determinations (Rule 4–51) 

*******

5–40–7400 .............................. Standard for volatile organic 

compounds (eight-hour 

ozone standard).

12/02/2015 8/16/2016 [Insert Federal 

Register Citation].

Notification and compliance 

dates added 

* * * * * * * 

5–40–7420 .............................. Standard for nitrogen oxides 

(eight-hour ozone standard).

12/02/2015 8/16/2016 [Insert Federal 

Register Citation].

Notification and compliance 

dates added 

*******


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
54510 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 16, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2016–19388 Filed 8–15–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2015–0652; FRL–9949–21] 

Flumioxazin; Pesticide Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 

tolerances for residues of flumioxazin in 

or on soybean forage and hay. Valent 

U.S.A. Corporation requested these 

tolerances under the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

August 16, 2016. Objections and 

requests for hearings must be received 

on or before October 17, 2016, 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–2015–0652, is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

or at the Office of Pesticide Programs 

Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) 

in the Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William 

Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 

20460–0001. The Public Reading Room 

is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the OPP 

Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Registration Division (7505P), Office of 

Pesticide Programs, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; 

main telephone number: (703) 305– 

7090; email address: 

RDFRNotices@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. The following 

list of North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) codes is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide to help readers 

determine whether this document 

applies to them. Potentially affected 

entities may include: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

B. How can I get electronic access to 

other related information? 

You may access a frequently updated 

electronic version of EPA’s tolerance 

regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through 

the Government Printing Office’s e-CFR 

site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/ 

40tab_02.tpl. To access the OCSPP test 

guidelines referenced in this document 

electronically, please go to http:// 

www.epa.gov/ocspp and select ‘‘Test 

Methods and Guidelines.’’ 

C. How can I file an objection or hearing 

request? 

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 

U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an 

objection to any aspect of this regulation 

and may also request a hearing on those 

objections. You must file your objection 

or request a hearing on this regulation 

in accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure 

proper receipt by EPA, you must 

identify docket ID number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2015–0652 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 October 17, 2016. 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– 

2015–0652, by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be CBI or 

other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: To make special 

arrangements for hand delivery or 

delivery of boxed information, please 

follow the instructions at http:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. 

Additional instructions on commenting 

or visiting the docket, along with more 

information about dockets generally, is 

available at http://www.epa.gov/ 

dockets. 

II. Summary of Petitioned-For 

Tolerance 

In the Federal Register of April 25, 

2016 (81 FR 24046) (FRL–9944–86), 

EPA issued a document pursuant to 

FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 

346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a 

pesticide petition (PP 5F8353) by Valent 

USA Corporation, 1600 Riviera Avenue, 

Suite 200, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 

U.S.A. The petition requested that 40 

CFR 180.180.568 be amended by 

establishing tolerances for residues of 

the herbicide flumioxazin, in or on 

soybean forage at 0.05 parts per million 

(ppm) and hay at 0.02 ppm. That 

document referenced a summary of the 

petition prepared by Valent USA 

Corporation, the registrant, which is 

available in the docket, http:// 

www.regulations.gov. There were no 

comments received in response to the 

notice of filing. 

Based upon review of the data 

supporting the petition, EPA has 

determined that the tolerance for 

soybean forage should be lowered from 

the proposed level of 0.05 ppm to 0.03 

ppm. The reason for these changes are 

explained in Unit IV.D. 

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and 

Determination of Safety 

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA 

allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the 

legal limit for a pesticide chemical 

residue in or on a food) only if EPA 

determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’ 

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA 

defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a 

reasonable certainty that no harm will 

result from aggregate exposure to the 

pesticide chemical residue, including 

all anticipated dietary exposures and all 

other exposures for which there is 

reliable information.’’ This includes 

exposure through drinking water and in 

residential settings, but does not include 

occupational exposure. Section 

408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to 

give special consideration to exposure 

of infants and children to the pesticide 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES