1 1 DATE: 3/ 24/ 05 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Note to the docket related to a replacement document for Region I's Response to Comments Document for docket no. OAR 2003 0061 FROM: Larry D. Wallace, Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards TO: U. S. EPA Office of Air Docket Per a note from Geoffrey Wilcox, of the Office of General Counsel ( OGC), I request that the Response to Comments document for Region I that is currently in docket " OAR 2003 0061" be removed and replaced with a revised version of the document. As stated in the note from Mr. Wilcox's, dated March 22, 2005, the revised document that is to be inserted into the docket was submitted on December 16th, 2004, prior to the December 17th signature date of the Federal Register notice designating PM2.5 areas. The revised document was intended to replace the version of the document that is currently in the docket and was omitted by mistake. In the interest of full and fair disclosure, we request that the revised document replace the current version in the docket and that this note be added to the docket along with the document so that the public may be advised of this change.

.

1. Responses to Comments EPA Region 1 ( Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont) 1 2 Comment: 1011 1 Region: 1 State: CT Area: New York N. New Jersey Long Island, CT NJ NY Comment: Commenter requests that EPA support Governor Rell's recommendation of attainment for the entire state of Connecticut. The comment letter transmits additional information as requested by EPA. These comments are as follows:

1. Recently acquired monitoring data demonstrate that the community in New Haven is not being exposed to PM2.5 concentrations above the NAAQS levels. Thus the city of New Haven should be designated attainment for PM2.5 .

2. Atmospheric transport and dispersion modeling conducted by EPA and DEP confirm that emissions from Connecticut are not contributing significantly to measured PM2.5 nonattainment in New York City and northern New Jersey. The Clean Air Interstate Rule ( CAIR) specifically excludes Connecticut from the program because EPA concluded that Connecticut's emissions do not significantly contribute to the PM2.5 nonattainment measured in New York and New Jersey.

If EPA believes the data do not support an attainment designation, the commenter requests EPA to consider designating parts of southwest Connecticut as unclassifiable as provided under Section 107( d)( 1)( A)( iii).

EPA Response: Comment 1: We have reviewed information provided to us by Connecticut supporting an argument that data from the Stiles Street PM2.5 monitor in New Haven County is not representative of area wide population exposure in the New Haven area, and that this monitor should be considered a " hot spot." We have concluded that Connecticut presents a good case that the diesel truck traffic on the on ramp within 30 feet of the Stiles Street monitor is contributing an added 2 to 4 µ g/ m3, which, when combined with regional and urban levels of fine particles, is enough to cause the monitor to violate the NAAQS. Based on information provided to us by Connecticut and our own review of all available data and information, we have concluded that it is appropriate to consider the Stiles Street PM2.5 monitor a unique hot spot monitor, which is not appropriate for comparison with the annual PM2.5 NAAQS standard. This is consistent with section <IP_ADDRESS>.3 of 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix D which reads:

" The health effects data base that served as the basis for selecting the new PM2.5 standards relied on a spatial average approach that reflects average community oriented area wide PM exposure levels. Under this approach, the most effective way to reduce total population risk is by lowering the annual distributions of ambient 24 hour PM2.5 concentrations, as opposed to controlling peak 24 hour concentrations on individual days. The annual standard selected by EPA will generally be the controlling standard for lowering both short and long term PM2.5 concentrations on an area wide basis and will achieve this result. In order to be consistent with this rationale, therefore, PM2.5 data collected from SLAMS and special purpose monitors that are representative, not of area wide but rather, of relatively unique population oriented micro scale, or localized hot 1 3 spot, or unique population oriented middle scale impact sites are only eligible for comparison only to the 24 hour PM2.5 NAAQS. However, in instances where certain population oriented micro or middle scale PM2.5 monitoring sites are determined by the EPA Regional Administrator to collectively identify a larger region of localized high ambient PM2.5 concentrations, data from these population oriented sites would be eligible for comparison to the annual NAAQS."

Comment 2: We have reviewed information provided to us by Connecticut supporting an argument that Connecticut should be separated from any PM2.5 nonattainment area that encompasses the violating monitors in NYC and northern New Jersey, and that the entire state of Connecticut should be designated in attainment with the PM2.5 NAAQS. While Connecticut makes some good arguments, we have decided to include New Haven and Fairfield Counties in the New York N. New Jersey Long Island, CT NJ NY PM2.5 nonattainment area. This decision is based on consideration of nine factors, including emissions, air quality, population density, traffic and commuting patterns, expected growth, meteorology, geography/ topography, jurisdictional boundaries, and level of control of emission sources.

EPA compared emissions, population, and traffic levels in all counties within and adjacent to the New York Newark Bridgeport, NY NJ CT PA Combined Statistical Area ( CSA), which was delineated by the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) on June 6, 2003. New Haven and Fairfield Counties had similar, or sometimes greater levels for all these factors than other New York counties ( e. g., Westchester, Nassau, Suffolk, and Orange) and New Jersey counties ( e. g., Middlesex, Bergen, and Monmouth) for which EPA is designating nonattainment.

Traffic count data from the New York State Department of Transportation indicate that average annual daily traffic crossing the NY CT border in both directions on Route 1 was 10,017 vehicles ( 2001), on Interstate 95 was 121,214 vehicles ( 1998), and on the Hutchinson/ Merritt Parkway was 41,177 vehicles ( 2001). Furthermore, there are 66,476 vehicles ( 2003) entering and leaving Connecticut daily via Interstate 84 north of Westchester County. ( See www. dot. state. ny. us/ tech_ serv/ high/ countfiles/ westchestertvbk. pdf and www. dot. state. ny. us/ tech_ serv/ high/ countfiles/ putnamtvbk. pdf.)

In addition, EPA notes that Fairfield and New Haven Counties are a conduit for a large percentage of the truck traffic that flows throughout New England. Information from the Federal Highway Administration illustrates that Interstate 95 is the major thoroughfare for truck traffic entering and exiting Connecticut. Moreover, this truck traffic is expected to increase significantly over the next 20 years. ( See ops. fhwa. dot. gov/ freight/ freight_ analysis/ state_ info/ connecticut/ profile_ ct. htm).

This large volume of vehicular traffic presents an opportunity for Connecticut to work with New York and New Jersey to identify measures to help reduce diesel emissions and, thus, help monitors in the New York urban area to meet PM2.5 standards.

Based on the above considerations, EPA is including New Haven and Fairfield Counties in the New York N. New Jersey Long Island, CT NJ NY PM2.5 nonattainment area. 1 4 Comment: 1013a 7 Region: 1 State: CT Area: New York N. New Jersey Long Island, CT NJ NY Comment: The entire New York Newark Bridgeport, NY NJ CT PA Combined Statistical Area, including Litchfield County must be designated nonattainment. EPA recommended the exclusion of Litchfield County from the nonattainment area partially due to a lack of monitored violations; however, there is no PM2.5 monitor in the county, so it is impossible to conclude that this county does not violate the standard.

EPA Response: The boundaries of the New York Northern New Jersey Long Island, NY NJ CT PA Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area ( CMSA), which was delineated by OMB in 1999, includes only a very small portion of Litchfield County, Connecticut ( i. e., only the towns of Bethlehem, Bridgewater, New Milford, Roxbury, Thomaston, Washington, Watertown and Woodbury). In 2003, however, OMB did include Litchfield County in the New York Newark Bridgeport, NY NJ CT PA Combined Statistical Area ( CSA).

To identify candidate counties for a PM2.5 nonattainment designation, EPA considered nine factors, including emissions, air quality ( as determined by PM2.5 monitors), population density, traffic and commuting patterns, expected growth, meteorology, geography/ topography, jurisdictional boundaries, and level of control of emission sources. Based on these factors, Litchfield County did not qualify as a candidate for a PM2.5 nonattainment designation. In particular, emissions levels from sources in Litchfield County are low compared to other counties in the New York Newark Bridgeport, NY NJ CT PA CSA. Moreover, although Litchfield County has no PM2.5 monitors with 3 years of complete data, there are nearby monitors in the adjacent counties of Fairfield, Hartford and New Haven that meet the PM2.5 NAAQS standards.

Furthermore, EPA and CT DEP assessed the contribution of commuters from Litchfield County to traffic levels in the New York portion of the CSA and concluded that vehicle emissions from Litchfield County do not contribute significantly to violating monitors in NYC and northern New Jersey. Based primarily on these considerations, EPA concludes that Litchfield County does not violate or contribute to violations of the PM2.5 NAAQS standard. 1 5 Comment: 1094 1 Region: 1 State: CT Area: New York N. New Jersey Long Island, CT NJ NY Comment: Commenter is concerned about the use by EPA of the New Haven Stiles Street PM2.5 monitor as a basis for designations of nonattainment in New York State. NY DEC believes that the Stiles Street monitor is a microscale monitor that is unrepresentative of community exposure and, therefore, should not be used for comparison with the annual NAAQS.

EPA Response: We have reviewed information provided to us by Connecticut supporting an argument that data from the Stiles Street PM2.5 monitor in New Haven County is not representative of area wide population exposure in the New Haven area, and that this monitor should be considered a " hot spot." We have concluded that Connecticut presents a good case that the diesel truck traffic on the on ramp within 30 feet of the Stiles Street monitor is contributing an added 2 to 4 µ g/ m3, which, when combined with regional and urban levels of fine particles, is enough to cause the monitor to violate the NAAQS. Based on information provided to us by Connecticut and our own review of all available data and information, we have concluded that, consistent with section <IP_ADDRESS>.3 of 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix D, it is not appropriate to compare the data from the Stiles Street PM2.5 monitor to the annual PM2.5 NAAQS standard. 1 6 Comment: ? Region: 1 State: CT Area: New York N. New Jersey Long Island, CT NJ NY ( Letter from CT Fund for the Environment)

Comment: Commenter supports EPA's preliminary determination that New Haven and Fairfield Counties should be included in the New York N. New Jersey Long Island, CTNJ NY PM2.5 nonattainment area, and encourages EPA to include these counties in the nonattainment area in the agency's final designation decisions.

EPA Response: We have reviewed information provided to us by Connecticut supporting an argument that Connecticut should be designated in attainment with the PM2.5 NAAQS. While Connecticut makes some good arguments, we have decided to include New Haven and Fairfield Counties in the New York N. New Jersey Long Island, CT NJ NY PM2.5 nonattainment area. This decision is based on consideration of nine factors, including emissions, air quality, population density, traffic and commuting patterns, expected growth, meteorology, geography/ topography, jurisdictional boundaries, and level of control of emission sources, and on national consistency in the designation process.

EPA compared emissions, population, and traffic levels in all counties within and adjacent to the New York Newark Bridgeport, NY NJ CT PA Combined Statistical Area ( CSA), which was delineated by the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) on June 6, 2003. New Haven and Fairfield Counties had similar, or sometimes greater levels for all these factors than other New York counties ( e. g., Westchester, Nassau, Suffolk, and Orange) and New Jersey counties ( e. g., Middlesex, Bergen, and Monmouth) for which EPA is designating nonattainment.

Traffic count data from the New York State Department of Transportation indicate that average annual daily traffic crossing the NY CT border in both directions on Route 1 was 10,017 vehicles ( 2001), on Interstate 95 was 121,214 vehicles ( 1998), and on the Hutchinson/ Merritt Parkway was 41,177 vehicles ( 2001). Furthermore, there are 66,476 vehicles ( 2003) entering and leaving Connecticut daily via Interstate 84 north of Westchester County. ( See www. dot. state. ny. us/ tech_ serv/ high/ countfiles/ westchestertvbk. pdf and www. dot. state. ny. us/ tech_ serv/ high/ countfiles/ putnamtvbk. pdf.)

In addition, EPA notes that Fairfield and New Haven Counties are a conduit for a large percentage of the truck traffic that flows throughout New England. Information from the Federal Highway Administration illustrates that Interstate 95 is the major thoroughfare for truck traffic entering and exiting Connecticut. Moreover, this truck traffic is expected to increase significantly over the next 20 years. ( See ops. fhwa. dot. gov/ freight/ freight_ analysis/ state_ info/ connecticut/ profile_ ct. htm).

This large volume of vehicular traffic presents an opportunity for Connecticut to work with New York and New Jersey to identify measures to help reduce diesel emissions and, thus, help monitors in the New York urban area to meet PM2.5 standards. 1 7 Based on the above considerations, EPA is including New Haven and Fairfield Counties in the New York N. New Jersey Long Island, CT NJ NY PM2.5 nonattainment area.


[Federal Register: November 6, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 214)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 62616]
[DOCID:fr06no07-22]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2006-0271; FRL-8491-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Louisiana; Approval of 8-Hour Ozone Section 110(a)(1) Maintenance Plans
for the Parishes of Beauregard, Grant, and St. Mary

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Louisiana State
Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning the 8-hour ozone maintenance plans
for the parishes of Beauregard, Grant, and St. Mary. On August 23,
2006, the State of Louisiana submitted separate SIP revisions
containing 8-hour ozone maintenance plans for Beauregard and Grant
Parishes, and on October 10, 2006, Louisiana submitted an 8-hour ozone
maintenance plan for St. Mary Parish. These plans ensure the continued
attainment of the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) through the year 2014. These maintenance plans meet the
statutory and regulatory requirements, and are consistent with EPA's
guidance. EPA is approving the revisions pursuant to section 110 of the
Federal Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before December 6, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air
Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Comments may also be
submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following
the detailed instructions in the Addresses section of the direct final
rule located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Belk, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, U.S. EPA, Region 6,
1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this
action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse
comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public
comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on
this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any
parties interested in commenting on this action should 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.
    For additional information, see the direct final rule, which is
located in the rules section of this Federal Register

    Dated: October 26, 2007.
Lawrence E. Starfield,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
 [FR Doc. E7-21688 Filed 11-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


State of California AIR RESOURCES BOARD Resolution 98 65 December 10, 1998 Agenda Item No.: 98 14 4 WHEREAS, sections 39600 and 39601 of the Health and Safety Code authorize the Air Resources Board ( the Board) to adopt standards, rules and regulations and to do such acts as may be necessary for the proper execution of the powers and duties granted to and imposed upon the Board by law;

WHEREAS, in section 43000 of the Health and Safety Code, the Legislature has declared that the emission of air pollutants from motor vehicles is the primary cause of air pollution in many parts of the state and, in sections 39002 and 39003 of the Health and Safety Code, has charged the Board with responsibility of systematically addressing the serious air pollution problem caused by motor vehicles;

WHEREAS, sections 43013, 43101, and 43104 of the Health and Safety Code authorize the Board to adopt motor vehicle emission standards, in use performance standards, and test procedures, which it finds to be necessary, cost effective, and technologically feasible;

WHEREAS, section 43018 of the Health and Safety Code directs the Board to endeavor to achieve the maximum degree of emissions reduction possible from vehicular sources to accomplish the attainment of state ambient air quality standards by the earliest practicable date;

WHEREAS, the amendments proposed by the staff set forth the engine families and vehicles to which the amended regulation would apply; the standards and test procedures; the earlycompliance credits; and other definitions and requirements;

WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act and Board regulations require that no project having significant adverse environmental impacts be adopted as originally proposed if feasible alternatives or mitigation measures are available to substantially reduce or avoid such impacts;

WHEREAS, the Board has considered the impact of the proposed regulatory action on the economy of the state;

WHEREAS, a public hearing and other administrative proceedings have been held in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 3.5 ( commencing with section 11340), Part 1, Division 3, Title 2 of the Government Code; Resoulution 98 65  2

WHEREAS, the Board finds that:

It is necessary and appropriate that the proposed amended regulation require manufacturers to certify on road motorcycles used in California to the proposed mandatory hydrocarbon plus oxides of nitrogen emission standards, beginning in 2004, to provide for reductions of hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen;

It is necessary and appropriate that the proposed amended regulation provide early compliance credit incentives for meeting, prior to 2008, either the proposed model year 2008 hydrocarbon plus oxides of nitrogen standard or the more stringent level of 0.4 gram per kilometer hydrocarbon plus oxides of nitrogen, with such credits to be used in the corporate averaging calculation for determining compliance with the applicable model year 2008 exhaust emission limit; and It is necessary and appropriate that the proposed amended regulation establish requirements specific to small volume manufacturers to minimize impacts to these businesses;

WHEREAS, the Board finds that adoption of the proposed amended regulation approved herein will not have a significant adverse environmental impact and that the proposed amended regulation is projected to have a positive air quality impact; and WHEREAS, the Board further finds that no alternative considered by the Board would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the regulations are proposed or would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board hereby approves amendments to section 1958 of title 13, California Code of Regulations, as noticed on October 23, 1998, with the modifications as set forth in Attachment A hereto.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board directs the Executive Officer to adopt the amendments, with the modifications as set forth in Attachment A, after making them available to the public for a period of 15 days, provided that the Executive Officer shall consider such written comments as may be submitted during this period, shall make further modifications as may be appropriate in light of the comments received or as necessary for consistency with the modifications in Attachment A, and shall present the regulations to the Board for further consideration if he determines that this is warranted.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board directs the Executive Officer to: ( 1) conduct a progress and cost review, on or before December 31, 2006, of the on road motorcycle manufacturers' efforts to meet the first and second tier standards set forth in Attachment A; Resoulution 98 65  3

( 2) determine whether to require small volume manufacturers to comply with the second tier standard in accordance with the regulation as amended at a future date; and ( 3) coordinate with on road motorcycle industry representatives to identify sources of equipment tampering, better quantify the effects such tampering has on emissions from on road motorcycles, and determine the most effective ways to reduce such tampering or its impacts on emissions.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby determines that the regulation adopted herein will not cause California motor vehicle emission standards, in the aggregate, to be less protective of public health and welfare than applicable federal standards.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby finds that separate California emission standards are necessary for small volume manufacturers as defined in the regulation.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board finds that the California emission standards as adopted herein will not cause the California requirements to be inconsistent with section 202( a) of the Clean Air Act and raise no new issues affecting previous waiver determinations of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to section 209( b) of the Clean Air Act.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Executive Officer shall, upon adoption, forward the regulations to the Environmental Protection Agency with a request for a waiver or confirmation that the regulations are within the scope of an existing waiver of federal preemption pursuant to section 209( b) of the Clean Air Act, as appropriate.

I hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of Resolution 98 65, as adopted by the Air Resources Board.

_________________________________________ Pat Hutchens, Clerk of the Board Resolution 98 65 December 10, 1998 Identification of Attachments to the Resolution Attachment A: Modifications to the originally noticed proposed amendments, as the modifications were suggested by staff and were directed by the Board at the December 10, 1998 public hearing.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 147 (Wednesday, July 31, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46279-46283]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18182]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0010; FRL-9391-9]

Forchlorfenuron; Temporary Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes temporary tolerances for residues
of forchlorfenuron in or on multiple commodities which are identified
and discussed later in this document. KIM-C1, LLC requested these
tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) for
uses associated with an experimental use permit. The tolerances expire
on December 31, 2015.

DATES: This regulation is effective July 31, 2013. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before September 30, 2013,
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-2013-0010, 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), EPA West 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: Marcel Howard, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

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-2013-0010 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
September 30, 2013. 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-2013-0010, 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.htm. 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 Tolerances

    In the Federal Register of February 15, 2013 (78 FR 11126) (FRL-
9378-4), 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
2F8055) by KIM-C1, LLC, 2547 West Shaw Avenue, Suite 116, Fresno, CA
93711. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.569 be amended by
establishing temporary tolerances for residues of the plant growth
regulator forchlorfenuron, (N-(2-chloro-4-pyridinyl)-N'-phenylurea), in
or on almond; cherry, sweet; fig; pear; pistachio; and plum, prune,
fresh at 0.01 parts per million (ppm) and almond, hulls at 0.15 ppm.
That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by KIM-C1,
LLC, the permittee, which is available to the public in the docket,
http://www.regulations.gov. A comment was received on the notice of
filing. EPA's response to that comment is discussed in Unit IV.C. These
tolerances expire on December 31, 2015.

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
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for forchlorfenuron including
exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action.
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with forchlorfenuron
follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    Forchlofenuron is not acutely toxic via the oral, dermal, and
inhalation routes. Dose-related effects noted in the dog following
subchronic and chronic exposure were generally limited to decreased
body weight and body-weight gain. In the rat, the only organ that
appeared to be affected was the kidney, which showed suppurative
inflammation, suppurative pyelonephritis, non-suppurative interstitial
nephritis, and cortical cysts following chronic exposure. Developmental
toxicity (decreased fetal body weight and increased pup mortality) was
observed in the rat only at a maternally-toxic dose. The developmental
toxicity studies in rats and rabbits, as well as the reproductive
toxicity study in rats, did not demonstrate any increased pre- or
postnatal sensitivity. There was no evidence of neurotoxicity in any of
the submitted studies. Forchlorfenuron is classified as not likely to
be a human carcinogen and there is no concern for mutagenicity. There
was no evidence of endocrine disruption in the forchlorfenuron
database.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
toxic effects caused by forchlorfenuron as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document titled Forchlorfenuron: Human
Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Uses on the Bushberry Subgroup 13B
and to Support a Requested Experimental Use Permit on Almonds, Sweet
Cherries, Figs, Pears, Pistachios, and Plums/Prunes in docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1065.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any

amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency
estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the
adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for forchlorfenuron used
for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit II. of the final rule
published in the Federal Register of August 15, 2008 (73 FR 47843)
(FRL-8375-4).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to forchlorfenuron, EPA considered exposure from the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing forchlorfenuron
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.569. EPA assessed dietary exposures from
forchlorfenuron in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
    No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for
forchlorfenuron; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure
assessment is unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996
and 1998 CSFII. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-
level residues and 100% crop treated. Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model
(DEEM version 7.81) default processing factors were used for apple
juice, dried apples, dried pears, prune juice, cranberry juice, and
grape juice. A processing factor was not used for raisins because a
separate tolerance (resulting from an empirical processing study) has
been established for this commodity. Additionally, the default
processing factor was not used for prunes (dried plums) since data
indicated that residues in prunes would not exceed the recommended plum
tolerance.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that forchlorfenuron does not pose a cancer risk to humans.
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing
cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the
dietary assessment for forchlorfenuron. Tolerance level residues and/or
100% CT were assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening-
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for forchlorfenuron in drinking water. These simulation
models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/
transport characteristics of forchlorfenuron. Further information
regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure
assessment can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    The conclusions of the Agency in the 2008 human health risk
assessment remain unchanged with respect to dietary exposure and risks.
The Agency has verified that the previous estimated drinking water
concentrations are also appropriate for use with this experimental use
permit (EUP) request.
    Forchlorfenuron is persistent and moderately mobile in soils.
Forchlorfenuron is also a substituted urea plant growth regulator that
is essentially stable to all routes of dissipation except sensitized
photodegradation in water. Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/
Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Screening
Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the estimated drinking
water concentrations (EDWCs) of forchlorfenuron from the proposed uses
on almonds, sweet cherries, figs, pears, plums, and pistachios under
the EUP will not exceed the EECs from the grape and kiwi uses
previously assessed by the Agency in the document titled Drinking Water
Assessment for Forchlorfenuron for Grape and Kiwi Uses. Therefore, the
Agency has incorporated the drinking water EEC from the grape and kiwi
analysis directly into this dietary assessment.
    For chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to
be 0.32 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 0.003 ppb for
ground water. Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were
directly entered into the dietary exposure model.
    For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of
value 0.32 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    Forchlorfenuron is not registered for any specific use patterns
that would result in residential exposure.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found forchlorfenuron to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and forchlorfenuron does not appear
to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
forchlorfenuron does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The developmental and
reproductive toxicity studies showed no evidence of increased
sensitivity or susceptibility of young rats or rabbits following
prenatal or postnatal exposure to forchlorfenuron.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for forchlorfenuron is complete.

    ii. There is no indication that forchlorfenuron is a neurotoxic
chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study
or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence that forchlorfenuron results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100% CT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to forchlorfenuron in drinking water. EPA used
similarly conservative assumptions to assess exposure and risks posed
by forchlorfenuron. These assessments will not underestimate the
exposure and risks posed by forchlorfenuron.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
forchlorfenuron is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
forchlorfenuron from food and water will utilize < 1% of the cPAD.
There are no residential uses for forchlorfenuron.
    3. Short-term risk and intermediate-term risk. Short-term and
intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account short-term and
intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
    Forchlorfenuron is currently not registered for any use patterns
that would result in short-term and intermediate-term residential
exposure. Because there is no short- or intermediate-term residential
exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under
the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as
the POD used to assess short- or intermediate-term risk), no further
assessment of short- or intermediate-term risk is necessary. EPA relies
on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating short- and
intermediate-term risk for forchlorfenuron.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, forchlorfenuron is not expected to pose a cancer risk to
humans.
    5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children, from aggregate
exposure to forchlorfenuron residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (HPLC/UV method (method
CCRL-MTH-029)) is available to enforce tolerances of forchlorfenuron
in/on members of the Bushberry Subgroup 13-07B and the commodities that
are the subject of the proposed EUP. Residues are determined by HPLC/UV
using external standards and residues are confirmed by liquid
chromatography (LC) mass spectrometry (MS/MS) analysis. The validated
limit of quantitation (LOQ) is 0.01 ppm for fruit and nut crops.

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level. The Codex has not
established a MRL for forchlorfenuron.

C. Response to Comment

    One comment was received in response to the notice of receipt of
the EUP's application. The commenter objected to the increase of
chemical residues and expressed concerns about the effects of chemicals
in general on humans and the environment. The Agency understands the
commenter's concerns regarding toxic chemicals and their potential
effects on humans and the environment. Pursuant to its authority under
the FFDCA, and as discussed further in this preamble, EPA conducted a
comprehensive assessment of forchlorfenuron. Based on its assessment of
the available data, the Agency has concluded that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to residues
of forchlorfenuron, including those associated with the EUP.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, temporary tolerances are established for residues of
forchlorfenuron, (N-(2-chloro-4-pyridinyl)-N'-phenylurea), including
its metabolites and degradates in or on almond; cherry, sweet; fig;
pear; pistachio; and plum, prune, fresh at 0.01 ppm and in or on
almond, hulls at 0.15 ppm. An expiration date of December 31, 2015, is
established for these uses, which are associated with the EUP (71049-
EUP-5) the Agency issued to KIM-C1, LLC for plant growth regulator
forchlorfenuron.
    In addition, consistent with EPA's policy for clarifying its
tolerance expressions, EPA is revising the tolerance expression for
forchlorfenuron to clarify that the tolerance includes metabolites and
degradates of forchlorfenuron and that compliance with the tolerance
levels specified in the table is to be determined by measuring only the
sum of forchlorfenuron, (N-(2-chloro-4-pyridinyl)-N'-phenylurea).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes temporary tolerances under FFDCA
section 408(r) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of
actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this
final rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866,
this final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled
``Actions Concerning Regulations That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition submitted under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the
tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed
rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.), do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act 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: July 22, 2013.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.569, revise paragraphs (a)(1) introductory text and
(a)(2) to read as follows:

Sec.  180.569  Forchlorfenuron; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. (1) Tolerances are established for residues of
forchlorfenuron, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the
commodities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance levels
specified below is to be determined by measuring only forchlorfenuron
(N-(2-chloro-4-pyridinyl)-N'-phenylurea).
* * * * *
    (2) Temporary tolerances are established for residues of
forchlorfenuron, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the
commodities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance levels
specified below is to be determined by measuring on forchlorfenuron (N-
(2-chloro-4-pyridinyl)-N'-phenylurea).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Expiration/
                Commodity                    Parts per      revocation
                                              million          date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almond..................................            0.01        12/31/15
Almond, hulls...........................            0.15        12/31/15
Cherry, sweet...........................            0.01        12/31/15
Fig.....................................            0.01        12/31/15
Pear....................................            0.01        12/31/15
Pistachio...............................            0.01        12/31/15
Plum, prune, fresh......................            0.01        12/31/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-18182 Filed 7-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 143 (Wednesday, July 25, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43616-43618]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18174]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2012-0019]

National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health
(NACOSH)

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for nominations to serve on NACOSH.

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

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and
Health requests nominations for membership on NACOSH. The terms of four
NACOSH members will expire on December 8, 2012.

DATES: Nominations for NACOSH must be submitted (postmarked, sent or
received) by September 10, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit nominations for NACOSH, which must include
the docket number for this Federal Register notice (Docket No. OSHA-
2012-0019), by one of the following methods:
    Electronically: You may submit nominations, including attachments,
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions on-line for submitting
nominations.

    Facsimile: If your nomination, including attachments, does not
exceed 10 pages, you may fax it to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, express delivery, hand delivery, messenger or courier
service: Submit your nomination to the OSHA Docket Office, Room N-2625,
U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20210; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> (OSHA's TTY number is<PHONE_NUMBER>).
Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger and courier service) are
accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket Office's normal
business hours, 8:15 a.m.-4:45 p.m., e.t, weekdays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For press inquiries: Mr. Francis
Meilinger, OSHA, Office of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor,
Room N3647, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information: Ms. Deborah Crawford, OSHA, Directorate of
Evaluation and Analysis, Room N3641, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
1932; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health invites interested individuals to submit
nominations for membership on NACOSH. Section 7(a) of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651, 656) authorizes
NACOSH to advise the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Health and
Human Services on matters relating to the administration of the OSH
Act. NACOSH is a continuing advisory body and operates in accordance
with the OSH Act, the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2),
and regulations issued pursuant to those laws (29 CFR Part 1912a, 41
CFR Part 102-3).
    NACOSH is comprised of 12 members, all of whom the Secretary of
Labor appoints. Nominations will be accepted for four vacancies. The
composition of the Committee and categories of new members to be
appointed are as follows:
     Four public representatives--one will be appointed;
     Two management representatives--one will be appointed;
     Two labor representatives--none will be appointed;
     Two occupational safety professional representatives--one
will be appointed; and
     Two occupational health professional representatives--one
will be appointed.
    Pursuant to 29 CFR 1912a.2, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services (HHS) will designate one of the occupational health
professional representatives for appointment by the Secretary of Labor.
Therefore, OSHA will provide to HHS all nominations and supporting
materials for that membership category.
    NACOSH members serve for staggered two-year terms, unless the
member becomes unable to serve, resigns, ceases to be qualified to
serve, or is removed by the Secretary of Labor. If a vacancy occurs
before a term expires, the Secretary may appoint a new member who
represents the same interest as the predecessor to serve the remainder
of the unexpired term. The Committee meets at least two times a year
(29 CFR 1912a.4).
    Any interested person or organization may nominate one or more
qualified persons for membership on NACOSH. Nominations must include
the nominee's name, occupation or current position, and contact
information. The nomination also must identify the category that the
candidate is qualified to represent, and include a resume of the
nominee's background, experience, and qualifications. In addition, the
nomination must state that the nominee is aware of the nomination and
is willing to serve on NACOSH for a two-year term.
    The Secretary of Labor will appoint NACOSH members on the basis of
their experience and competence in the field of occupational safety and
health (29 CFR 1912a.2). The information received through this
nomination process, in addition to other relevant sources of
information, will assist the Secretary of Labor in appointing members
to serve on NACOSH. In appointing NACOSH members, the Secretary of
Labor will consider individuals nominated in response to this Federal
Register notice, as well as other qualified individuals.
    The U.S. Department of Labor is committed to equal opportunity in
the workplace and seeks broad-based and diverse NACOSH membership. The
Department will conduct a basic background check of nominees before
their appointment using publicly available, Internet-based sources.

Public Participation--Submission of Nominations and Access to Docket

    You may submit nominations (1) electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, the Federal eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile
(FAX); or (3) by hard copy. All comments, attachments and other
material must identify the Agency name and docket number for this
Federal Register notice (OSHA Docket No. OSHA-2012-0019). You may
supplement electronic nominations by uploading document files
electronically. If, instead, you wish to mail additional materials in
reference to an electronic or fax submission, you must submit them to
the OSHA Docket Office (see ADDRESSES section). The additional
materials must clearly identify your electronic nomination by name,
date, and docket number so OSHA can attach them to your nomination.
    Because of security-related procedures, the use of regular mail may
cause a significant delay in the receipt of nominations. For
information about security procedures concerning the delivery of
materials by hand, express delivery, messenger or courier service,
please contact the OSHA Docket Office (see ADDRESSES).
    OSHA posts submissions without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions interested parties about
submitting personal information such as Social Security numbers and
birth dates. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download through http://www.regulations.gov. All submissions, including copyrighted material,
are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
Information on using the http://www.regulations.gov to submit comments
and access the docket is available on that Web site. Contact the OSHA
Docket Office for information about materials not available through
that Web site and for assistance in using the internet to locate docket
submissions.
    Electronic copies of this Federal Register document also are
available at http://www.regulations.gov. This document, as well as news
releases and other relevant information, are available at OSHA's Web
site at http://www.osha.gov.

Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice
under the authority granted by section 7 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 656), the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(5 U.S.C. App. 2); 29 CFR part 1912a; 41 CFR part 102-3; and Secretary
of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, 1/25/2012).

    Signed at Washington, DC on July 20, 2012.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2012-18174 Filed 7-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P