                           SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR
               EPA INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST NUMBER 2493.03

                   REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS

                              For the Final Rule:

CATEGORICAL NON-WASTE DETERMINATION FOR SELECTED NON HAZARDOUS SECONDARY MATERIALS (NHSMs):
        CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WOOD, RECYCLING PROCESS RESIDUALS,
                      AND CREOSOTE-TREATED RAILROAD TIES

       (Additions to List of Section 241.4 Categorical Non-Waste Fuels)

                               December 17, 2015

                               TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.	IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION	1
1(a)	Title and Number of the Information Collection	1
1(b)	Background and Short Characterization	1

2.	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION	2
2(a)	Need and Authority for the Collection	2
2(b)	Practical Utility and Users of the Data	2

3.	NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER
	COLLECTION CRITERIA 	2
3(a)	Nonduplication	2
3(b)	Public Notice	3
3(c)	Consultations	3
3(d)	Effects of Less Frequent Collection	3
3(e)	General Guidelines	3
3(f)	Confidentiality	3
3(g)	Sensitive Questions	4

4.	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED	4
4(a)	Respondents and NAICS Codes	4
4(b)	Information Requested	4

5.	THE INFORMATION COLLECTED -- AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT	5
5(a)	Agency Activities	5
5(b)	Small Entity Flexibility	5

6.	ESTIMATING THE HOUR AND COST BURDEN OF THE COLLECTION	5
6(a)	Estimating Respondent Burden	6
6(b)	Estimating Respondent Costs	6
6(c)	Estimating Agency Burden and Costs	7
6(d)	Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs	7
6(e)	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs	8
6(f)	Reason for Change in Burden	9
6(g) 	Burden Statement	9
                                   EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1:  Estimated Respondent Burden and Cost	10

Exhibit 2:  Estimated Agency Burden and Cost	11

Exhibit 3:  Estimated Average Burden per Respondent	12

1.	IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

1(a)	Title and Number of the Information Collection

	This information Collection Request (ICR) is entitled "Categorical Non-Waste Determination for Selected Non Hazardous Secondary Materials (NHSM): Construction and Demolition Wood, Recycling Process Residuals, and Creosote-Treated Railroad Ties (Additions to List of Section 241.4 Categorical Non-Waste Fuels)," ICR Number 2493.03.
1(b)	Background and Short Characterization

	Section 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) directs EPA to promulgate regulations to control emissions of nine specified pollutants from "solid waste incineration units." EPA did so in December 2000 with the publication of the final Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units (the "CISWI Rule").  In September 2004, under section 112(d) of the CAA, the Agency promulgated the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters (the "Boilers Rule").  This rule established Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards for this source category.  Units regulated under section 129 cannot be subject to any rule promulgated under section 112.

	Responding to a petition for reconsideration, EPA amended the CISWI Rule in September 2005 with a rule that revised definitions for "solid waste," "commercial or industrial waste," and "commercial and industrial solid waste incineration unit" (the "CISWI Definitions Rule").  As part of the CISWI Definitions Rule, EPA made a distinction between solid waste incinerators and boilers, characterizing the former as units that are designed and operated to discard materials through high temperature combustion. However, EPA excluded from the definition of a solid waste incinerator those units designed to recover energy for "useful purposes such as steam generation or process heating."

In July 2007, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated and remanded to EPA both the CISWI Definitions Rule and the Boilers Rule. In vacating the Definitions Rule, the Court noted that, despite the potential reasonableness of the functional distinction between boilers and incinerators, the CAA is unambiguous in its requirement that EPA regulate as a solid waste incineration unit any commercial or industrial incinerator that combusts any solid waste material, regardless of whether the waste is burned as a "fuel."  The Court also concluded that EPA erred in excluding from the CISWI Definitions Rule units that combust solid waste for the purposes of energy recovery and including these units in the Boilers Rule.

In partial response to the Court's decision, EPA published the Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials (NHSM) Rule on March 21, 2011.  Amendments to this rule were published in the Federal Register on February 7, 2013.  These amendments provided clarification on certain issues on which EPA received new information, as well as specific targeted revisions.  In addition, these amendments listed several NHSMs as categorical non-wastes when used as fuels.  The Agency also indicated that we would consider adding additional materials to the categorical listings as more information became available.

	The rule associated with this ICR Supporting Statement adds three additional materials to the list of categorical non-waste fuels: (1) construction and demolition (C&D) wood processed  from construction and demolition debris according to best management practices; (2) paper recycling residuals (PRRs) generated from the recycling of recovered paper, paperboard and corrugated containers and combusted by paper recycling mills whose boilers are designed to burn solid fuel; and (3) creosote-treated railroad ties that are processed and combusted in units designed to burn both biomass and fuel oil as part of normal operations and not solely as part of start-up or shut-down operations.  This ICR is a description of the indirect information collection requirements associated with the final rule.

2.	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

2(a) 	Need and Authority for the Collection

      The requirements covered in this ICR are necessary for the EPA to identify appropriately processed non-hazardous secondary materials that are solid waste when combusted and to enforce Sections 112 and 129 of the Clean Air Act. The EPA is establishing these information collection requirements under the authority of the Clean Air Act, subject to the non solid waste characterization established under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

2(b) 	Practical Utility and Users of the Data

      The EPA will use the collected information, if any, to ensure that non-hazardous secondary materials that are solid wastes are managed as such and that combustion units that use these materials are regulated under the appropriate Section(s) of the Clean Air Act.

3.	NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

3(a)	Non duplication

      None of the information required by the rule would duplicate information required by existing RCRA or CAA regulations.  No other Federal agency or department is known to collect this information.

3(b)	Public Notice

      In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the EPA opened a 60-day public comment period at the time that the Proposed Rule was published in the Federal Register. To assist the public in commenting on the proposal, EPA raised a number of issues in the preamble to the Proposed Rule and asked for the public to comment on them.  EPA has published responses to the comments on the rulemaking docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2013-0110) and addresses several of these comments in the preamble to the Final Rule.

      An additional 30 day notice announcing the proposed rule information collection activities was posted on December 16, 2015 (80 FR 78225).

3(c)	Consultations

      The EPA consulted with and collected information from various interested parties over the course of the several months to support the Final Rule.  EPA solicited and received comments on the Proposed Rule and addresses these comments in the preamble to the Final Rule.  EPA also met and communicated with industry associations, generators and users of the materials potentially affected by the rule, as well as other interested parties.  The summaries of the meetings and telephone conversations with interested parties are available in the docket for the Final Rule.

      Presented below is a representative sample of contacts that provided data and information that contributed in some way to the development of the Final Rule, and this ICR:

 American Forest and Paper Association<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Broad Run Construction Waste Recycling<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Bayshore Recycling<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Industrial Economics, Inc. (EPA contractor)<PHONE_NUMBER>)
 Association of American Railroads<PHONE_NUMBER>)
 Treated Wood Council<PHONE_NUMBER>)

3(d)	Effects of Less Frequent Collection

      The EPA has carefully considered the burden imposed upon the regulated community by the Final Rule.  EPA is confident that the activities required of respondents are necessary, and to the extent possible, the Agency has attempted to minimize the burden imposed. The EPA strongly believes that, if the minimum informational requirements of the rule are not met, neither industry nor the EPA will be able to ensure that non-hazardous secondary materials that are solid wastes are managed in a manner that is protective of human health and the environment.

3(e)	General Guidelines

      This ICR adheres to the guidelines stated in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, OMB's implementing regulations, EPA's ICR Handbook, and other applicable OMB guidance.

      Any information collections performed under this clearance will follow all of OMB's General Guidelines regarding data collection.

3(f)	Confidentiality

      Section 3007(b) of RCRA and 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B, which defines EPA's general policy on public disclosure of information, contain provisions for confidentiality.  However, the Agency does not anticipate that businesses will assert a claim of confidentiality covering all or part of the Final Rule.  However, if such a claim is asserted, the EPA must, and will treat the information in accordance with the regulations cited above. The Agency will also ensure that this information collection complies with the Privacy Act of 1974 and OMB Circular A-130.

3(g)	Sensitive Questions

      No questions of a sensitive nature are included in the information collection requirements associated with the Final Rule.

4.	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

4(a)	Respondents and NAICS Codes

      The following is a list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes associated with the facilities potentially affected by this ICR.

 Generators and Potential Users[a] of the New Materials to be Added to the List of Categorical Non-Waste Fuels
 Primary Industry Category or Sub Category
 NAICS[b]
 Utilities
 221
 Construction of Buildings
 236
 Site Preparation Contractors
 238910
 Manufacturing
 31, 32, 33
 Wood Product Manufacturing
 321
 Sawmills
 321113
 Wood Preservation (includes crosstie creosote treating)
 321114
 Pulp, Paper, and Paper Products
 322
 Cement manufacturing
 32731
 Railroads (includes line haul and short line)
 482
 Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation, Land (Includes: railroad, scenic and sightseeing)
 487110
 Port and Harbor Operations (Used railroad ties)
 488310
 Landscaping Services
 561730
 Solid Waste Collection
 562111
 Solid Waste Landfill
 562212
 Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators
 562213
 Marinas
 713930
 [a] Includes: Major Source Boilers, Area Source Boilers, and Solid Waste Incinerators
 [b] NAICS - North American Industrial Classification System

      This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be impacted by this action.

4(b)	Information Requested

      This section describes information collection requirements applicable to entities that would be affected by the Final Rule.
Petition Process
	The rule does not contain a petition process.

Notification
      The rule does not contain any notification requirements.
Rule Familiarization (Reading the Regulations)
      (i) Data items:
      None.
      (ii) Respondent activities:

	It is expected that all entities potentially affected (indirectly) by the Final Rule will need to read it to assess how it may affect their operations.  Entities indirectly affected by the Final Rule include the entities combusting the categorical non-waste fuels, and construction and demolition (C&D) wood processing facilities would incur an annual burden associated with the preparation of a certification statement necessary to assure the NHSM combustors that the C&D wood received from such processing facilities is clean, and has been processed according to best management practices.  In addition, the combustor entities could have indirect activities related to their air permitting requirements as a result of the Final Rule.

C&D Wood Processing Facilities
      Construction and demolition (C&D) wood processing facilities would incur a burden associated with the preparation of a certification statement and associated recordkeeping requirements necessary to assure the NHSM combustors that the C&D wood received from such processing facilities is clean, and has been processed according to best management practices. While the certification statement may only be a one-time burden (i.e., processor staff and purchasing combustors do not change over time), we have assumed that this burden may be an annual one, as new purchasers would have to be supplied the certification statement, and processor staff turnover may require more frequent recordkeeping to ensure that best management practices are continually employed by the processing facility.  This certification statement and associated recordkeeping for the processors is an indirect requirement of the Final Rule.

Title V Permitting (Combustor entities)
      Under the Final Rule, some combustion units that are currently regulated under Section 129 of the Clean Air Act may have the opportunity to be newly regulated under Section 112.  For a limited number of units (i.e., non-major HAP sources), this change in regulatory status could potentially trigger reduced permitting requirements since they would no longer have Title V requirements pursuant to Section 129 of the Clean Air Act.  This would be an indirect impact of the rule, and would not represent any direct burden change under this RCRA action.
	Conversely, under the Final rule, some combustion units that are currently regulated under Section 112 of the Clean air Act could instead be regulated under Section 129.  For a limited number of units (i.e., non-major HAP sources that do not have Title V permitting requirements), this change in regulatory status could potentially trigger the permitting requirements of Title V of the Clean Air Act.

	Title V permitting requirements apply to all major emissions sources regulated under Section 112 emission standards for major sources and solid waste incineration units regulated under Section 129 of the Clean Air Act, regardless of size.  Therefore, many of the units potentially affected by the rule are already required to obtain a Title V permit.  The data available to the Agency do not indicate that any units will be newly subject to the Title V permitting requirement as a result of the Final Rule.  Therefore, this ICR does not examine any activities associated with Title V permitting.

5.	THE INFORMATION COLLECTED -- AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
5(a)	Agency Activities
      Because the Final Rule contains no notification requirements, the Agency will not engage in notification review.

5(b)	Collection Methodology and Management
      This is not a survey ICR that requires primary (first hand) data collection.  The data used in this ICR were collected from secondary sources and past EPA analyses that employed quality controlled data.
5(c)	Small Entity Flexibility
      The self-implementing approach for non-waste determinations would provide small entities with flexibility to minimize any burden indirectly associated with the Final Rule.  Under this approach, small entities would not be required to submit any paperwork to EPA or state agencies and would have the flexibility to develop their own individualized approaches for determining whether the materials that they burn meet the non-waste criteria included in the Final Rule.   Likewise for C&D processors, small entities have the flexibility to develop their own individualized approaches for implementing and documenting that best management practices are employed in producing clean C&D wood.
 5(d)	Collection Schedule

	There are two burden categories associated with this action: reading and understanding the rule, and certification statements for affected facilities.  Reading and understanding the rule is a one-time burden expected to occur to affected facilities within one month following publication.  The schedule for preparation and submission of certification statements for affected facilities is not possible for the Agency to determine and will occur based on each facility's needs and production schedule.

6.	ESTIMATING THE HOUR AND COST BURDEN OF THE COLLECTION

	This section provides information on the cost and burden associated with the information collection for both the respondents and the Agency.  It presents these cost and burden estimates as individual costs per respondent, and as an aggregate cost for the entire respondent universe and the Agency on an annual basis and over the entire period covered by the ICR.

6(a)	Estimating Respondent Burden

	In Exhibit 1, EPA estimates the respondent burden associated with the new paperwork requirements in the Final Rule.  As shown in the Exhibit, EPA estimates that the one-time respondent burden for rule familiarization is one hour per facility (respondent), recognizing that rule familiarization would occur on a per facility basis. In addition to rule familiarization, construction and demolition (C&D) wood processing facilities would incur an annual burden associated with the preparation of a certification statement necessary to assure the NHSM combustors that the C&D wood received from such processing facilities is clean, and has been processed according to best management practices. EPA estimates that C&D wood processors would need approximately 4.1 hours to prepare the certification statement and provide to purchasers (combustors) of the C&D wood.  This certification statement and associated recordkeeping for the processors is an indirect requirement of the Final Rule.

6(b)	Estimating Respondent Costs

Labor Costs

      Exhibit 1 summarizes the total costs of the burden associated with the Final Rule.  As indicated in the exhibit, the rule familiarization cost is estimated at $102.18 per facility (respondent).  C&D wood processing facilities are also estimated to incur an indirect burden-related cost of $419.01 per facility per year for preparation of the certification statement and associated recordkeeping.  These cost estimates reflects the total cost of labor (base wage rate plus benefits plus labor related overhead).  For purposes of this analysis, we have estimated an average hourly respondent total labor cost of $140.45 for legal personnel, $110.54 for managerial, $81.86 for technical staff, and $29.78 for clerical staff.

Capital and Operation & Maintenance Costs
      Capital costs usually include any produced physical good necessary to provide the required information, such as machinery, computers, and other equipment.  The Agency does not anticipate that respondents will incur capital costs associated with this Final Rule.

      O&M costs are those costs associated with materials and services procured for the information collection requirements included in the ICR.  For this ICR, O&M costs may include the costs of supplies used in the preparation of each C&D wood certification statement (e.g., paper, photocopies, postage).  These O&M costs are believed to be negligible (less than $1 per certification) and have not been incorporated into Exhibit 1.

Capital/Start-up Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

	There are no operating and maintenance capital or start-up costs associated with this Final Rule.

Annualizing Capital Costs

	There are no capital costs associated with this Final Rule, thus there are no capital costs to annualize.

6(c)	Estimating Agency Burden and Costs

      As indicated in Exhibit 2, there is no Agency burden or cost associated with this RCRA action.

6(d)	Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

Respondent Universe

      The number of affected entities varies by information collection activity, as summarized below:

Rule Familiarization: We estimate that a total of 605 facilities will incur rule familiarization costs under the Final Rule.  This estimate is based upon information compiled by the EPA on the number of potentially affected generators/processors and burners of the non-hazardous secondary materials addressed in this action.

Our sources indicated there may be anywhere from 300 to 500 C&D wood processing facilities operating in the U.S. who may be impacted by this action.  We use the high estimate of 500 facilities in this ICR.  In addition, there may be up to 20 different paper recycling mills that may be impacted by this action, and approximately 15 Creosote Treated Railroad Tie recovery companies operating in North America.  Based on the information presented in Table 5 of the Boiler MACT Preamble (40 CFR Part 63. January 31, 2013), we estimate there may be as many as 70 biomass capable section 112 facilities in the U.S., operating boilers or process heaters that may burn the non-waste material that goes off-site.  Exhibit 1 presents the sources for these estimates.

Certification Statement: We estimate that there may be approximately 500 C&D wood processing facilities that may need to prepare the certification statement indirectly required by this final rule.

Respondent Burden and Cost

      Based on the universe data presented above, the EPA estimates the aggregate respondent burden associated with all of the new information collection requirements covered in this ICR.  A discussion of the assumptions used in developing these burden estimates follows.

      Rule Familiarization

      As shown in Exhibit 1, we estimate that a total of 605 potentially affected facilities will need to read and understand the rule.  We estimate that the per-facility burden for rule familiarization is one hour, with a cost of approximately $102.18 per facility.

      Certification Statement

      As shown in Exhibit 1, we estimate that as many as 500 potentially affected C&D wood processors facilities may need to prepare the certification statement.  The estimated per facility burden of this certification statement is 4.1 hours, and the estimated cost per facility is $419.01.

6(e)	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs

Respondent Burden and Costs

      In Exhibit 1, we present the total respondent burden and cost for the rule familiarization and the certification statement.  The total respondent burden and costs for these requirements are as follows:

      Rule Familiarization
      All potentially affected facilities will incur the one-time cost of reading the rule. EPA estimates that the total burden for rule familiarization is 605 hours.  At the cost of $102.18 per hour, the associated aggregate cost is estimated at $61,819.  Averaged over the three year period of this ICR the total annual cost is estimated at $20,606.

      Certification Statement

      Affected C&D wood processing facilities are expected to incur an annual cost of preparing and providing the certification statement, plus associated recordkeeping.  The estimated (annual) aggregate burden for respondents is 2,050 hours and the estimated (annual) aggregate cost is approximately $209,505.

      Respondent Burden Hours Table

                                 Annual Burden
                              Total 3 Year Burden
Rule Familiarization
                                      202
                                      605
Certification Statement
                                     2,050
                                     6,150
Total Burden
                                     2,252
                                     6,150
      Respondent Labor Cost Table

                                 Annual Burden
                              Total 3 Year Burden
Rule Familiarization
                                    $20,606
                                    $61,819
Certification Statement
                                   $209,505
                                   $628,515
Total Burden
                                   $230,111
                                   $690,334

Agency Burden and Costs

      There is no total Agency burden and cost associated with the paperwork requirements for the rule.

Variations in the Annual Bottom Line

      We do not expect a significant variation (>25%) in the annual respondent reporting/recordkeeping burden or cost over the course of the clearance period for this ICR.

6(f)	Reasons for Change in Burden

      As described in this ICR, the EPA expects that the rule will result in an increase in burden to selected entities. This increase in burden reflects the specific paperwork requirement indirectly established in association with the C&D wood processor certification statement.  The Agency has determined that this requirement is necessary for informed assessments of the waste status of certain secondary materials, and to ensure that non-hazardous secondary materials are managed in a manner that is consistent with their status as a waste or non-waste.

6(g)	Burden Statement

	Exhibit 3 summarizes the average burden associated with each of the paperwork requirements associated with the rule, presented separately for regulated entities and the EPA.  The paperwork requirements reflected in the exhibit include one-time activities for (1) the certification statement for C&D wood processors, and (2) rule familiarization.

	As indicated in Exhibit 3, we estimate the total burden associated with one-time activities as a range for regulated entities and EPA.  This is because the burden per respondent depends on whether the respondent files a petition for non-waste determination.

	Burden Statement:  The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average about four hours per response.  Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.  An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.  The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

	To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, the EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-RCRA-2013-0110, which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the RCRA Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C.  The EPA Docket Center 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 Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the RCRA Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  An electronic version of the public docket is available at www.regulations.gov.  This site can be used to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically.  When in the system, select "search," then key in the Docket ID Number identified above.  Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-RCRA-2013-0110 and the OMB Control Number in any correspondence.

	Exhibit 1 - Estimated Respondent  Burden and Cost

                                                           Hours and Costs/hour per Respondent                                                                                Total Hours and  Cost

                                   ACTIVITY

                                     Legal
                                    $140.45

                                  Managerial
                                    $110.54

                                   Technical
                                    $81.86

                                   Clerical
                                    $29.78

                               Respondent Hours

                                  Labor Cost

                                   Capital/
                                 Startup Cost

                                    O&M
                                     Cost

                              Cost per Respondent

                             Number of Respondents

                                  Total Hours

                                  Total Cost

RULE FAMILIARIZATION  -  Read the rule (one-time burden and cost)
Affected Facilities
                                      0.2
                                      0.3
                                      0.5
                                      0.0
                                      1.0
                                    $102.18
                                     $0.0
                                     $0.0
                                    $102.18
                                      605
                                      605
                                    $61,819

CERTIFICATION STATEMENT FOR AFFECTED FACILITIES:
Affected Facilities
                                     1.00
                                     1.50
                                     1.25
                                     0.35
                                     4.10
                                    $419.01
                                     $0.0
                                     $0.0
                                    $419.01
                                      500
                                     2,050
                                   $209,505
Note:  Wage rates are loaded estimates.
Sources:
 Additions to List of Section 241.4 Categorical Non-Waste Fuels, Final Rule
 U.S. EPA, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery.  Assessment of the Potential Costs, Benefits, and Other Impacts for the Final Rule: Categorical Non-Waste Determination for Selected Non Hazardous Secondary Materials (NHSM): Construction and Demolition Wood, Recycling Process Residuals, and Creosote-Treated Railroad Ties.
 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters; Final Rule (40 CFR Part 63. January 31, 2013).
 U.S. EPA, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery. August 24, 2009. Waste and Materials-Flow Benchmark Sector Report: Beneficial Use of Secondary Materials - Construction & Demolition Materials.
 Franklin Associates. June 1998. Characterization of Building-Related Construction and Demolition Debris in the United States.
 Generation, Management, and Processing of Paper Processing Residuals.  Industrial Economics Corporation (IEc.) October 26, 2012.

Assumptions:
 Based on the information presented in Table 5 of the Preamble (40 CFR Part 63. January 31, 2013), we estimate there are approximately 60 to 70 biomass capable section 112 facilities in the U.S., operating boilers or process heaters.  We assume that facilities with exclusive non biomass capable units (e.g., gas 1, light or heavy liquid units, coal units) would have no interest in taking the time to read the rule.  An unknown number of CISWI facilities and other interested parties may read the rule.
 EPA (August 24, 2009) estimates there are 3,300 C&D materials recycling facilities operating nationwide.  This includes approximately 3,000 concrete and asphalt recyclers, which leaves about 300 mixed debris (including wood processing) facilities.  Franklin Associates (June 1998) estimates there were about 500 wood waste processing facilities operating in the U.S. in the late 1990's.  We use the high estimate of 500 facilities in this ICR.
 Based on IEc paper referenced above, there are approximately 15 to 20 different paper recycling mills that may be impacted by this action.
 Information submitted to the Agency indicates there are approximately 15 Creosote Treated Railroad Tie recovery companies operating in North America (see Preamble to the Final Rule).

	Exhibit 2 - Estimated Agency Burden and Cost

                                                           Hours and Costs per Respondent                                                                                Total Hours and Costs

INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITY

Legal

Mgr.

Tech.

Cler.

Respon. Hours

Labor Cost

Capital/
Startup Cost

O & M
Cost

Total Cost per Respondent
Number of Respondents

Total Hours

Total Cost

There is no estimated Agency burden or cost associated with the RCRA action.  Enforcement of the C&D wood processing certification statement falls under the Clean Air Act.

                                   Exhibit 3

                Estimated Average Burden per Respondent (hours)

                              Regulated Entities
                                      EPA
Burden for activities

   Rule Familiarization (one-time burden)
                                      1.0
                                      N/A
   Certification Statement (annual burden)
                                      4.1
                                      N/A


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 129 (Tuesday, July 7, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38725-38726]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16549]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4226-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2015-0002]

Arkansas; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Arkansas (FEMA-4226-DR), dated June 26, 2015,
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: June 26, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated June 26, 2015, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Arkansas resulting from severe storms, tornadoes, straight-line
winds, and flooding during the period of May 7 to June 15, 2015, is
of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster
declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in
the State of Arkansas.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance and Public
Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout
the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance
be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act
for Hazard Mitigation and Other Needs Assistance will be limited to
75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under
the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects
that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing
percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot
Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of
the Stafford Act.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The time period prescribed for the implementation of section
310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public
Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed
six months after the date of this declaration.
    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Nancy M. Casper, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Arkansas have been designated
as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Crawford, Garland, Howard, Jefferson, Little River, Miller,
Perry, Sebastian, and Sevier Counties for Individual Assistance.
    Clark, Crawford, Dallas, Franklin, Garland, Hempstead, Howard,
Independence, Izard, Jefferson, Johnson, Lafayette, Little River,
Logan, Madison, Marion, Miller, Montgomery, Nevada, Newton,
Ouachita, Perry, Pike, Polk, Scott, Searcy, Sevier, and Yell
Counties for Public Assistance.
    All areas within the State of Arkansas are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2015-16549 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 147 (Friday, July 31, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45670-45671]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18854]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2015-0629; OMB Control Number 1625-0003]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY:  In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request
(ICRs) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of an
extension of a currently approved collection: 1625-0003, Boating
Accident Report. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect
from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is
inviting comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before September 29,
2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2015-0629] to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). To avoid duplicate
submissions, please use only one of the following means:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Mail: DMF (M-30), DOT, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-
140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (3) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. To ensure your comments are received in a
timely manner, mark the fax, to attention Desk Officer for the Coast
Guard.
    The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and
material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in
this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the
docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12-140
on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Copies of the ICR(s) are available through the docket on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are
available from: COMMANDANT (CG-612), ATTN PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT
MANAGER, U.S. COAST GUARD, 2703 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR AVE. SE., STOP
7710, WASHINGTON DC 20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Contact Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program
Manager, Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether these ICRs should be
granted based on the Collections being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of

information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In
response to your comments, we may revise these ICRs or decide not to
seek approval of revisions of the Collection. We will consider all
comments and material received during the comment period.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of
the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2015-0629], and
must be received by September 29, 2015. We will post all comments
received, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov. They will
include any personal information you provide. We have an agreement with
DOT to use their DMF. Please see the ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG-
2015-0629], indicate the specific section of the document to which each
comment applies, providing a reason for each comment. You may submit
your comments and material online (via http://www.regulations.gov), by
fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If
you submit a comment online via www.regulations.gov, it will be
considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit
the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be
considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is
received at the DMF. We recommend you include your name, mailing
address, an email address, or other contact information in the body of
your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding
your submission.
    You may submit your comments and material by electronic means,
mail, fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under ADDRESSES; but
please submit them by only one means. To submit your comment online, go
to http://www.regulations.gov, and type ``USCG-2015-0629'' in the
``Search'' box. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery,
submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by
mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period
and will address them accordingly.
    Viewing comments and documents: To view comments, as well as
documents mentioned in this Notice as being available in the docket, go
to http://www.regulations.gov, click on the ``read comments'' box,
which will then become highlighted in blue. In the ``Search'' box
insert ``USCG-2015-0629'' and click ``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket
Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column. You may also visit the DMF in Room
W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received in
dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act statement
regarding Coast Guard public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of
the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Information Collection Request

    1. Title: Boating Accident Report.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0003.
    Summary: The Coast Guard Boating Accident Report form is the data
collection instrument that ensures compliance with the implementing
regulations and Title 46 U.S.C. 6102(b) that requires the Secretary to
collect, analyze and publish reports, information, and statistics on
marine casualties.
    Need: Title 46 U.S.C. 6102 (a) requires a uniform marine casualty
reporting system, with regulations prescribing casualties to be
reported and the manner of reporting. The statute requires a state to
compile and submit to the Secretary (delegated to the Coast Guard)
reports, information, and statistics on casualties reported to the
State. Implementing regulations are contained in Title 33, Code of
Federal Regulations, SUBCHAPTER S--BOATING SAFETY, PART 173--VESSEL
NUMBERING AND CASUALTY AND ACCIDENT REPORTING, Subpart C--Casualty and
Accident Reporting and Part 174--STATE NUMBERING AND CASUALTY REPORTING
SYSTEMS, Subpart C--Casualty Reporting System Requirements, and Subpart
D--State reports.
    States are required to forward copies of the reports or
electronically transmit accident report data to the Coast Guard within
30 days of their receipt of the report as prescribed by 33 Code of
Federal Regulations Sec.  174.121 (Forwarding of casualty or accident
reports). The accident report data and statistical information obtained
from the reports submitted by the State reporting authorities are used
by the Coast Guard in the compilation of national recreational boating
accident statistics.
    Forms: CG-3865 and CG-3865SP.
    Respondents: Federal regulations (33 CFR 173.55) require the
operator of any uninspected vessel that is numbered or used for
recreational purposes to submit an accident report to the State
authority when:
    (1) A person dies; or
    (2) A person is injured and requires medical treatment beyond first
aid; or
    (3) Damage to the vessel and other property totals $2,000 or more,
or there is a complete loss of the vessel; or
    (4) A person disappears from the vessel under circumstances that
indicate death or injury.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden remains unchanged at 2,500
hours a year.

    Authority:  The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: July 24, 2015.
Thomas P. Michelli,
U.S. Coast Guard, Deputy Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015-18854 Filed 7-30-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: March 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 43)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 10186-10190]
[DOCID:fr05mr10-8]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0316; FRL-8814-6]

Beauveria bassiana HF23; Amendment of Exemption from the
Requirement of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation amends an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of the microbial insecticide. Beauveria bassiana
HF23 (40 CFR 180.1273) on all food commodities when used to treat
chicken and livestock facilities, from which manure will eventually be
composted and used as fertilizer on agricultural crops. JABB of the
Carolinas submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting this amendment of the exemption from
the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to
establish a maximum permissible level for residues of Beauveria
bassiana HF23.

DATES: This regulation is effective March 5, 2010. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before May 4, 2010, 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: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0316. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shanaz Bacchus, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail 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.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

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.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 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. The EPA procedural regulations which
govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in
40 CFR part 178. 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-2005-0316 in the subject line on the first page of
your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or
delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before May 4, 2010.
    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 that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit your copies, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0316 by one of the following methods.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of March 16, 2009 (74 FR 11100) (FRL-8405-
1), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance
petition (PP 8F7467) by JABB of the Carolinas, P.O. Box 310, Pine
Level, NC 27568. The company's supporting documents for the notice of
filing of the petition incorrectly assigned PP 5F6960 to this petition.
The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.1273 be amended by expanding the
uses covered by the existing exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of Beauveria bassiana HF23. This notice
indicated that a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner was
included in the docket for this action.
     One anonymous public comment was posted to the docket asserting
that foods should have zero pesticide residues and requested labeling
for all foods with any residue above the zero level. The commenter also
referred to the toxicity of chemicals and their possible link to
cancer.
    The Agency's response to this comment follows. This active
ingredient, Beauveria bassiana HF23, occurs naturally in the
environment and the human population is potentially exposed to it
regardless of whether it is registered as a pesticide or not. Thus, it
is not even possible to eliminate exposure to this substance since it
is a naturally occurring ubiquitous soil microbe.
    EPA regulates pesticides according to peer-reviewed and publicly
available guidelines that describe endpoints for human health risk
assessment. Tests are conducted with the active ingredient or end-use
product in surrogate animals through various routes of administration
(i.e., oral, dermal, pulmonary, etc.). Any effects seen are reported to
the Agency, peer-reviewed, and evaluated to determine whether the
effects of the test material demonstrate infectivity, acute toxicity,
or pathogenicity. Beauveria bassiana HF23 has demonstrated a low
toxicity profile in such testing and did not trigger the need for
further testing for carcinogenicity. Summaries of data reviewed in
support of this active ingredient are available in the Biopesticide
Registration Action Document (BRAD) on Beauveria bassiana HF23
(www.epa.gov/pesticide/biopesticides) and in the final rule published
for use of the active ingredient for chicken manure treatment in the
Federal Register on January 10, 2007 (72 FR 1177) (FRL-8108-4).
    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(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. Pursuant to section 408(c)(2)(B) of FFDCA, in
establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in
section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA, which require 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. . . .''
Additionally, section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA requires that 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 performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the
toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings.

III. Toxicological Profile

    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability
and the relationship of this information 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.
    Beauveria bassiana HF23 is a fungus with insecticidal properties.
It is a naturally occurring, ubiquitous soil microbe. This strain, and
other strains of Beauveria bassiana that are registered as pesticides,
demonstrate low toxicity potential and are not likely to harm human
adults, infants, and children. An exemption from tolerance has already
been established in 40 CFR 180.1273 for residues of Beauveria bassiana
HF23 on all food/feed commodities, when the pesticide is used to treat
chicken manure (72FR 1177, January 10, 2007). The toxicological profile
of this active ingredient was published in that final rule and
summaries of the studies cited in support of this tolerance exemption
amendment are available in the BRAD on www.epa.gov/pesticides/
biopesticides. The registrant now cites those data and provides
additional information to support expanding the tolerance exemption to
include residues on food/feed commodities from agricultural crops
fertilized with manure from livestock facilities, where the manure was
treated with Beauveria bassiana HF23. Reference to those studies are
included in the following discussion.

    Based on the previously reviewed data, the Agency classified the
active ingredient as Toxicity Category IV for acute oral and acute
pulmonary effects and Toxicity Category III for acute dermal effects.
These studies indicated that the pesticide was not toxic, infective or
pathogenic via these routes of exposure. Also, the test organism was
not toxic or pathogenic to rats via the intraperitoneal route.
Immunotoxicity testing is not required for this active ingredient
because it does not contain viruses that are known to interact in an
adverse manner with the mammalian immune system.
    No incidents of hypersensitivity associated with the TGAI or
proposed components of the EP have been reported or are found in the
scientific literature to date. However, as with all pesticides, any
incidents of hypersensitivity or other adverse effects associated with
the use of Beauveria bassiana HF23 must be reported to the Agency, in
accordance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA) section 6(a)(2).

IV. Aggregate Exposures

    In examining aggregate exposure, section 408 of FFDCA directs EPA
to consider available information concerning exposures from the
pesticide residue in food and all other non-occupational exposures,
including drinking water from ground water or surface water and
exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings
(residential and other indoor uses).

A. Dietary Exposure

    1. Food. The pesticide is intended for the control of houseflies in
livestock and chicken facilities. In livestock facilities, the
pesticide is to be applied as bait in stations that are not within
reach of livestock or as a spray to the facilities. In chicken
facilities, the pesticide is applied directly onto the chicken manure
to control houseflies as well as to the walls of the chicken houses.
The pesticide is not applied directly either to chicken or livestock,
nor is it applied directly to food or feed. In light of these uses in
chicken and livestock facilities, the Agency has evaluated whether
there is any potential for residues of the pesticide to result in or on
meat, milk, poultry, eggs, or other products derived from chickens or
livestock present in such facilities. In addition, the Agency has
considered whether there is any potential for residues to result in
food or feed crops as a result of the use of treated manure as
fertilizer for agricultural crops.
    With respect to meat, milk, poultry, eggs, or other products
derived from chickens or livestock, the Agency has considered the
following. First, as already explained in the aforementioned BRAD and
in the prior final rule granting a tolerance exemption for Beauveria
bassiana HF23 (Unit III.A. and B., 72 FR 1177, January 10, 2007), the
acute oral and dermal toxicity tests in mammals resulted in the Agency
classifying the fungus as a low Toxicity Category IV for acute oral
effects and Toxicity Category III for acute dermal effects. Second,
acute toxicology tests involving dermally administered Beauveria
bassiana HF23 led to a toxicity Category III acute dermal
classification for the fungus. Third, there were no signs of
infectivity in tissues examined during the acute intraperitoneal test
in mammalian rodents. Fourth, an acute oral toxicity test conducted in
chicken also demonstrated that the active ingredient is not toxic,
infective or pathogenic to chicken. Fifth, clearance was observed in
all tissues analyzed during these avian and mammalian tests and they
were conducted with guideline levels of the active ingredient, with no
toxic, infective or pathogenic effects to the avian and mammalian test
organisms. Summaries of these tests can be found in the prior final
rule published on January 10, 2007 (72 FR 1177, Unit III. A, B, and E)
and in the BRAD for Beauveria bassiana HF23. Based on all of this, the
Agency concludes that residues of the pesticide are not likely to be
transferred to meat, milk, eggs, poultry or other products derived from
chicken and livestock as a result of treating chicken and livestock
facilities with the pesticide.
    Moreover, to the extent that there could be negligible residues
resulting in meat, milk, eggs, poultry, or other products derived from
the chicken and livestock from such facilities, it is expected that
they will not be greater than naturally occurring background levels to
which humans already are possibly exposed due to the fact that this is
a ubiquitous soil microbe. In addition, to the extent that there were
any potential negligible residues of the fungus Beauveria bassiana HF23
resulting in meat, milk, eggs, poultry, or other products derived from
the chicken or livestock from treated facilities, which, again, is
unlikely and not expected, it is expected that they would be removed in
connection with the steps taken to prepare such products for market and
consumption. For example, the shells of eggs are washed, and eggs are
cooked prior to human consumption. The shells also can be expected to
prevent any residues of the pesticide from getting into the edible

portions of eggs. Feathers are removed from chickens and hides from
livestock during dressing operations and meat and poultry preparation.
These measures are expected to remove any potential negligible residues
prior to human consumption. Similarly, washing, cleaning and other
processes when preparing meat, as well as the pasteurization of milk,
would remove any potential negligible residues from meat and milk.
    In connection with the use of treated manure as fertilizer for
agricultural crops, the Agency has concluded that while it is possible
for extremely low or negligible residues to result in or on food and
feed derived from those crops, this, nonetheless, is unlikely for the
following reasons. First, prior to being used on agricultural crops,
chicken and livestock manure is composted. This is significant because
Beauveria bassiana HF23 does not survive temperatures greater than 37
degrees Centigrade (the average mammalian body temperature), and thus,
would not be expected to survive the higher temperatures of composting
(40-50 degrees Centigrade on average) (Master Records Identification
(MRID)) 46526011. In addition, Beauveria bassiana HF23 does not survive
in Ultraviolet (UV) light, so it is likely that any residues that
survived composting would be destroyed by UV light once the treated
manure is applied to agricultural crops in the field if the pesticide
is used as labeled.
    On the basis of the foregoing considerations, and mindful of the
previously mentioned studies that indicate that Beauveria bassiana HF23
is not toxic, infective or pathogenic via the tested routes of
exposure, is not toxic or pathogenic to rats via the intraperitoneal
route, and does not contain viruses that are known to interact in an
adverse manner with the mammalian immune system, the Agency concludes
that no harm is expected to human adults, children, or infants via
consumption of any food products derived from chicken or livestock
potentially exposed to the pesticide as a result of its use (in
accordance with label directions) in chicken and livestock facilities,
or via consumption of any food products derived from agricultural crops
to which treated manure has been applied as a fertilizer.
    2. Drinking water exposure. No drinking water exposure is
anticipated because of the use patterns, use sites, and the nature of
the active ingredient at issue. The pesticide is to be used for indoor
treatment of chicken and livestock facilities. It will be applied in
either a suspension or a granular bait formulation. Most notably, there
are no aquatic use sites permitted for this pesticide. Thus, there is
likely to be no access to sources of drinking water as a result of
applications within such facilities. Moreover, even if the pesticide
did somehow reach drinking water as a result of the permitted indoor
uses, Beauveria bassiana HF23 is not known to proliferate in aquatic
environments (BRAD Chapter III.C).
    The Agency also does not expect any residues in drinking water or
ground water as a result of application of treated manure that is used
as fertilizer on agricultural crops. Beauveria bassiana HF23 is a soil
microbe. As discussed in Unit IV.A.1, this microbe is not likely to
survive composting temperatures or subsequent exposure to UV light. In
addition, because soil microbes generally tend to seek their nutrients
and grow in the upper levels of soil and do not, as a result, penetrate
lower soil levels that are more akin to filtration beds, Beauveria
bassiana HF23 is not expected to percolate into soil and reach ground
water (see BRAD Chapter III.C.). Thus, transfer of this naturally
occurring, low toxicity, soil borne microbe from soil to ground water
is unlikely.
    Accordingly, the Agency concludes that Beauveria bassiana HF23,
when used as labeled and in accordance with good agricultural
practices, is not likely to pose any incremental dietary risk to human
adults, children, or infants via consumption of drinking water (see
BRAD and 72 FR 1177, Jan. 10, 2007).

B. Other Non-Occupational Exposure

    1. Dermal exposure. EPA has concluded that there is unlikely to be
any non-occupational dermal exposure because the use sites are
commercial and agricultural.
    2. Inhalation exposure. Similarly, non-occupational inhalation
exposure to Beauveria bassiana HF23 from its proposed commercial and
agricultural use as a pesticide to treat chicken manure or livestock
facilities is not anticipated.
    In summary, the potential aggregate exposure as a result of the use
of the pesticidal active ingredient Beauveria bassiana HF23 is not
likely to pose a hazard via aggregate exposure. This includes potential
hazards derived from (i.) dietary exposure from the treated food/feed
commodities, (ii.) drinking water potentially exposed secondary to
treatment of sites with this pesticide; and (iii.) dermal and
inhalation non-occupational exposure of populations exposed to
Beauveria bassiana HF23.

V. Cumulative Effects

    Three other Beauveria bassiana strains are registered. While they
show the same mechanism as entomopathogens, they are involved in
treatments of specific target pests. In this instance, Beauveria
bassiana HF23 is directed against the public health hazard, houseflies.
Because Beauveria bassiana HF23 does not operate via a toxic mechanism,
section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) does not apply. In any event, since none of the
registered strains are toxic, infective or pathogenic to humans and
other mammals or other non-target organisms, cumulative adverse health
or environmental effects of Beauveria bassiana HF23 are not expected.

VI. Determination of Safety for U.S. Population, Infants and Children

    The Agency has concluded that there is a reasonable certainty that
no harm will result from aggregate exposures to Beauveria bassiana HF23
in or on all food commodities, when the pesticide is used to treat
manure in chicken and livestock facilities, which manure will in turn
be used as fertilizer on agricultural crops. The Agency bases this
conclusion on the data that demonstrate this substance has little to no
toxicity or infectivity. Based on all the available information, the
Agency concludes that the fungus, Beauveria bassiana HF23, is non-toxic
to mammals, including infants and children. Because there are no
threshold effects of concern to infants, children, and adults when
Beauveria bassiana HF23 is used as a pesticidal active ingredient, the
Agency has determined that the additional margin of safety is not
necessary to protect infants and children, and that not adding any
additional margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. As a
result, EPA has not used a margin of exposure (safety) approach to
assess the safety of Beauveria bassiana HF23.

VII. Other Considerations

A. Endocrine Disruptors

    See Federal Register, 72 FR 1177, January 10, 2007.

B. Analytical Method(s)

    See Federal Register, 72 FR 1177, January 10, 2007.

C. Codex Maximum Residue Level

    There is no Codex Maximum Residue Level (MRL) for residues of
Beauveria bassiana HF23 on all food commodities.

VIII. Conclusions

    In summary, the Agency has determined that, based on available data

and information, there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from
aggregate exposure to Beauveria bassiana HF23 on all food commodities,
resulting either from its use (in accordance with all label direction
and good agricultural practices) in chicken and livestock facilities or
as a result of the subsequent use of treated manure from livestock and
chicken facilities as fertilizer on agricultural crops. Thus, an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is being granted for
residues of Beauveria bassiana HF23 on all food commodities in response
to pesticide petition PP 8F7467.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of
FFDCA 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 under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance
exemption 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 section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. 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) (Public Law 104-4).
    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), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

X. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. 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 this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule 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: February 25, 2010.
Keith A. Matthews,
Acting Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180.1273 continues to read as
follows:

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

0
2. In subpart D, revise Sec. 180.1273 to read as follows:

Sec.  180.1273.  Beauveria bassiana HF23; exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance.

    Residues of Beauveria bassiana HF23 are exempt from the requirement
of a tolerance on all food/feed commodities, when the pesticide is used
for the treatment of chicken and livestock facilities, including the
treatment of chicken and livestock manure.
[FR Doc. 2010-4544 Filed 3-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


APPENDIX F  2,4 D Turf Transferable Residue ( TTR) Data SPREADSHEET F1  2,4 D TTR DATA SUMMARY Treatment App Rate ( lb ae/ A) GPA Initial TTR ( ug/ cm2) Initial TTR ( Percent) MAX TTR ( ug/ cm2) Max TTR ( Percent) Slope Factor Percent Relative Error N R2 Half Life ( days)

MRID 446557 02 North Carolina Trial 1  Effect of Form DMA 1.72 10.3 0.308 1.6 0.561 2.9  0.83 9.8 27 0.81 0.83 2 EHE 1.7 10.2 0.231 1.2 0.340 1.8  0.56 5.1 30 0.93 1.24 DMA Mix 1.58 9.9 0.16 0.9 0.309 1.7  1.39 11 21 0.83 0.50 MRID 446557 03 North Carolina Trial 2  Effect of Spray Volume DMA Mix 1.76 2.0 0.194 1.00 0.229 1.2  2.66 15 15 0.71 0.26 DMA Mix 1.76 5.0 0.249 1.3 0.249 1.3  3.02 11 15 0.90 0.23 DMA Mix 1.76 20 0.159 0.80 0.171 0.87  2.44 6.5 15 0.95 0.28 Avg 0.200 1.00  2.26 5.8 45 0.87 0.31 MRID 450331 01 California Trials DMA 1.67 9.9 0.242 1.3 0.242 1.3  0.25 17 24 0.60 2.77 DMA Mix 1.66 9.9 0.197 1.10 0.197 1.1  0.26 9.5 24 0.83 2.67 MRID 450331 01 Wisconsin Trials DMA 1.65 9.5 0.207 1.10 0.207 1.1 N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A DMA Mix 1.64 9.4 0.150 0.80 0.211 1.1 N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A AVG 1.1 1.4  1.6 10.1 0.83 1.0 MAX 1.6 2.9  0.25 17 0.95 2.77 MIN 0.8 0.9  3.0 5.1 0.60 0.23 Spreadsheet F2: MRID 446557 02 NC1 Trial ( 2,4 D DMA)

DAT 2,4 D ( ng/ cm2) Percent TTR LN Rainfall ( inches) Application Method Groundboom Pre < 0.879 Application Rate ( lbs ae/ A 1.72 0 305 1.58 5.72 0 Gallons/ Acre 10.28 0 443 2.30 6.09 0 0 177 0.92 5.18 0 LOQ( ng/ cm2) 0.879 0.50 297 1.54 5.69 0 LOD( ng/ cm2) Not Specified 0.50 103.0 0.53 4.63 0 0.50 67.0 0.35 4.20 0 Avg TTR Percent TTR 1 479 2.48 6.17 0 DAT 0.0 308 1.6 1 789 4.09 6.67 0 DAT 1.0 561 2.9 1 415 2.15 6.03 0 2 14.70 0.076 2.69 0 Field Recovery 100 @ 4ng/ cm2 ( n= 3, SD = 6.9) 2 8.18 0.042 2.10 0 ( Percent) 97.8 @ 40ng/ cm2 ( n= 3, SD = 9.8) 2 15.40 0.080 2.73 0 All samples are for DAT 0. 3 7.58 0.039 2.03 0.06 3 5.00 0.026 1.61 0.06 Note: DAT 1 samples were collected one hour early due to 3 4.55 0.024 1.52 0.06 threat of rain as stated in protocol deviation. 4 8.58 0.044 2.15 0 4 7.84 0.041 2.06 0 Regression O 4 7.73 0.040 2.05 0 Constant 5.43 5 4.27 0.022 1.45 0 Std Err of Y Est 1.00 5 1.42 0.007 0.35 0 R Squared 0.81 5 5.11 0.026 1.63 0 No. of Observations 27 6 2.90 0.015 1.06 0 Degrees of Freedom 25 6 3.00 0.016 1.10 0 6 4.74 0.025 1.56 0 X Coefficient( s)  0.832 7 0.44 0.002  0.82 0.04 Std Err of Coef. 0.081 7 0.44 0.002  0.82 0.04 Relative Error 9.8 7 1.97 0.010 0.68 0.04 Values were not corrected for field recovery 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 DAT  2  1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LN of ng/ cm2 R square = 0.807 # pts = 27 y = 5.43 +  0.832x NC Trial 1  2,4 D DMA Spreadsheet F3: MRID 446557 02 NC1 Trial ( 2,4 D EHE)

DAT 2,4 D ( ng/ cm2) Percent TTR LN Rainfall ( inches) Application Method Groundboom Pre < 0.879 Application Rate ( lbs ae/ A) 1.7 0 215 1.13 5.37 0 Gallons/ Acre 10.15 0 221 1.16 5.40 0 0 248 1.30 5.51 0 LOQ( ng/ cm2) 0.879 0.50 240 1.26 5.48 0 LOD( ng/ cm2) Not Specified 0.50 229.0 1.20 5.43 0 0.50 288.0 1.51 5.66 0 Avg TTR Percent TTR 1 434 2.28 6.07 0 DAT 0.0 231 1.2 1 323 1.69 5.78 0 DAT 1.0 340 1.8 1 263 1.38 5.57 0 2 145.00 0.76 4.98 0 Field Recovery 111 @ 4ng/ cm2 ( n= 6, SD = 10.7) 2 109.00 0.57 4.69 0 ( Percent) 108 @ 40ng/ cm2 ( n= 6, SD = 6.2) 2 74.80 0.39 4.31 0 111 for DAT 0 ( n= 6, SD= 3.4) 3 27.80 0.15 3.33 0.06 108 for DAT 6 ( n= 6, SD= 11.9) 3 63.70 0.33 4.15 0.06 3 42.60 0.22 3.75 0.06 4 49.50 0.26 3.90 0 Note: DAT 1 samples were collected one hour early due to 4 35.50 0.19 3.57 0 threat of rain as stated in protocol deviation. 4 33.00 0.17 3.50 0 5 26.60 0.14 3.28 0 Regression Output: 5 26.10 0.14 3.26 0 Constant 5.80 5 13.60 0.07 2.61 0 Std Err of Y Est 0.47 6 15.50 0.08 2.74 0 R Squared 0.93 6 13.30 0.07 2.59 0 No. of Observations 30 6 4.86 0.03 1.58 0 Degrees of Freedom 28 7 11.80 0.06 2.47 0.04 7 6.40 0.03 1.86 0.04 X Coefficient( s)  0.56 7 14.90 0.08 2.70 0.04 Std Err of Coef. 0.028 10 1.04 0.01 0.04 0.17 Relative Error 5.09 10 2.20 0.01 0.79 0.17 10 0.44 0.00  0.82 0.17 Values were not corrected for field recovery 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 DAT  2  1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LN of ng/ cm2 R square = 0.932 # pts = 30 y = 5.8 +  0.558x NC Trial 1  2,4 D EHE Spreadsheet F4: MRID 446557 02 NC1 Trial ( 2,4 D DMA, MCPP p and Dicamba)

DAT 2,4 D Raw Data ( ng/ cm2) 2,4 D Adjusted ( ng/ cm2) Percent TTR LN Rainfall ( inches) Application Method Groundboom Pre < 0.879 Application Rate ( lbs ae/ A) 1.58 0 89 136 0.77 4.91 0 Gallons/ Acre 9.89 0 117 179 1.01 5.19 0 0 107 164 0.93 5.10 0 LOQ( ng/ cm2) 0.879 0.50 156 239 1.35 5.48 0 LOD( ng/ cm2) Not Specified 0.50 207.0 317 1.79 5.76 0 0.50 241.0 370 2.09 5.91 0 Avg TTR Percent TTR 1 83 127 0.72 4.84 0 DAT 0.0 160 0.9 1 79 121 0.68 4.80 0 DAT 0.5 309 1.7 1 74 113 0.64 4.73 0 2 1.58 1.58 0.01 0.46 0 Field Recovery 2 1.97 1.97 0.01 0.68 0 ( Percent) 81.2 @ 4ng/ cm2 ( n= 6, SD = 17.1) 2 1.76 1.76 0.01 0.57 0 74.8 @ 40ng/ cm2 ( n= 6, SD = 12.1) 3 1.12 1.12 0.01 0.11 0.06 65.2 for DAT 0 samples ( n= 6, SD= 4.6) 3 1.55 1.55 0.01 0.44 0.06 90.8 for DAT 6 samples ( n= 6, SD= 6.8) 3 0.44 0.44 0.00  0.82 0.06 4 1.09 1.09 0.01 0.09 0 Regression Output: 4 1.19 1.19 0.01 0.17 0 Constant 5.27 4 0.97 0.97 0.01  0.03 0 Std Err of Y Est 1.16 5 0.44 0.44 0.00  0.82 0 R Squared 0.83 5 0.44 0.44 0.00  0.82 0 No. of Observations 21 5 0.44 0.44 0.00  0.82 0 Degrees of Freedom 19 6 0.44 0.44 0.00  0.82 0 X Coefficient( s)  1.39 6 0.44 0.44 0.00  0.82 0 Std Err of Coef. 0.15 6 0.44 0.44 0.00  0.82 0 Relative Error 10.5 DAT 0 to DAT 1.0 values were corrected for field recovery of 65.2 percent DAT 2 to DAT 6 values were not corrected. Note: DAT 1 samples were collected one hour early due to threat of rain as stated in the protocol deviation.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DAT  2  1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LN of ng/ cm2 R square = 0.802 # pts = 24 y = 4.95 +  1.17x NC Trial 1  2,4 D DMA MIX Spreadsheet F5: MRID 446557 03 NC2 Trial 2 GPA Treatment ( 2,4 D DMA with MCPP p DMA and Dicamba DMA)

DAT 2,4 D Raw Data ( ng/ cm2) 2,4 D Adjusted ( ng/ cm2) LN Rainfall ( inches) Application Method Groundboom Pre < 0.879 Application Rate ( lbs ae/ A) 1.76 0 87 110 4.70 0 Gallons/ Acre 2 0 270 343 5.84 0 0 102 129 4.86 0 LOQ( ng/ cm2) 0.879 0.50 96 121 4.80 0 LOD( ng/ cm2) Not Specified 0.50 61.5 78.0 4.36 0 0.50 57.1 72.5 4.28 0 Avg TTR Percent TTR 1 210 266 5.59 0 DAT 0.0 194 1.0 1 155 197 5.28 0 DAT 1.0 229 1.2 1 177 225 5.41 0 2 1.61 1.79 0.58 0.17 Field Recovery 89.7 @ 4ng/ cm2 ( n= 6, SD = 7.18) 2 0.44 0.49  0.71 0.17 ( Percent) 78.8 @ 40ng/ cm2 ( n= 6, SD = 5.90) 2 0.44 0.49  0.71 0.17 82.0 for DAT 0 samples ( n= 6, SD= 5.8) 3 0.44 0.49  0.71 0.46 86.5 for DAT 6 samples ( n= 6, SD= 10.6) 3 0.94 1.05 0.05 0.46 3 0.49 0.55  0.60 0.46 Regression Output: 4 1.37 1.53 0.42 0.03 Constant 5.74 4 1.77 1.97 0.68 0.03 Std Err of Y Est 1.32 4 1.25 1.39 0.33 0.03 R Squared 0.79 5 0.44 0.49  0.71 0.03 No. of Observations 15 5 0.44 0.49  0.71 0.03 Degrees of Freedom 13 5 0.44 0.49  0.71 0.03 X Coefficient( s)  2.21 Std Err of Coef. 0.32 Relative Error 14 DAT 0 to DAT 1.0 values were corrected for field recovery of 78.8 percent DAT 2 to DAT 5 values were corrected for field recovery of 89.7 percent 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 DAT  2  1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LN of ng/ cm2 R square = 0.789 # pts = 15 y = 5.74 +  2.21x NC Trial 2  2 GPA Spreadsheet F6: MRID 446557 03 NC2 Trial 5 GPA Treatment ( 2,4 D DMA with MCPP p DMA and Dicamba DMA)

DAT 2,4 D Raw Data ( ng/ cm2) 2,4 D Adjusted ( ng/ cm2) LN Rainfall ( inches) Application Method Groundboom Pre < 0.879 Application Rate ( lbs ae/ A) 1.76 0 247 313 5.75 0 Gallons/ Acre 5 0 195 247 5.51 0 0 146 185 5.22 0 LOQ( ng/ cm2) 0.879 0.50 132 168 5.12 0 LOD( ng/ cm2) Not Specified 0.50 100 127 4.84 0 0.50 79 100 4.61 0 Avg TTR Percent TTR 1.00 55.6 70.6 4.26 0 DAT 0.0 249 1.3 1.00 32.7 41.5 3.73 0 1.00 75.8 96 4.57 0 2 1.00 1.11 0.11 0.17 Regression Output: 2 0.44 0.49  0.71 0.17 Constant 5.77 2 0.44 0.49  0.71 0.17 Std Err of Y Est 0.92 3 0.44 0.49  0.71 0.46 R Squared 0.90 3 0.44 0.49  0.71 0.46 No. of Observations 15 3 0.44 0.49  0.71 0.46 Degrees of Freedom 13 4 0.44 0.49  0.71 0.03 X Coefficient( s)  2.38 4 0.44 0.49  0.71 0.03 Std Err of Coef. 0.22 4 0.44 0.49  0.71 0.03 Relative Error 9.3 5 0.44 0.49  0.71 0.03 5 0.44 0.49  0.71 0.03 Field Recovery 5 0.44 0.49  0.71 0.03 89.7 @ 4ng/ cm2 ( n= 6, SD = 7.18) 78.8 @ 40ng/ cm2 ( n= 6, SD = 5.90) 82.0 for DAT 0 samples ( n= 6, SD= 5.8) 86.5 for DAT 6 samples ( n= 6, SD= 10.6)

DAT 0 to DAT 1.0 values were corrected for field recovery of 78.8 percent DAT 2 values were corrected for field recovery of 89.7 percent 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 DAT  2 0 2 4 6 8 10 LN of ng/ cm2 R square = 0.899 # pts = 15 y = 5.77 +  2.38x NC Trial 2  5 GPA Spreadsheet F7: MRID 446557 03 NC2 Trial 20 GPA Treatment ( 2,4 D DMA with MCPP p DMA and Dicamba DMA)

DAT 2,4 D Raw Data ( ng/ cm2) 2,4 D Adjusted ( ng/ cm2) LN Rainfall ( inches) Application Method Groundboom Pre < 0.879 Application Rate ( lbs ae/ A) 1.76 0.0 140 178 5.18 0 Gallons/ Acre 20 0.0 99 126 4.84 0 0.0 136 173 5.15 0 LOQ( ng/ cm2) 0.879 0.50 122 155 5.04 0 LOD( ng/ cm2) Not Specified 0.50 158 201 5.30 0 0.50 125 159 5.07 0 Avg TTR Percent TTR 1.00 29 37 3.60 0 DAT 0.0 to 0.50 159 0.80 1.00 32 41 3.71 0 DAT 0.5 171 0.87 1.00 46 58 4.06 0 2 1.65 1.84 0.61 0.17 Regression Output: 2 1.23 1.37 0.32 0.17 Constant 5.59 2 1.50 1.67 0.51 0.17 Std Err of Y Est 0.60 3 0.44 0.49  0.71 0.46 R Squared 0.95 3 0.44 0.49  0.71 0.46 No. of Observations 15 3 0.44 0.49  0.71 0.46 Degrees of Freedom 13 4 0.44 0.49  0.71 0.03 4 0.44 0.49  0.71 0.03 X Coefficient( s)  2.19 4 0.44 0.49  0.71 0.03 Std Err of Coef. 0.14 5 0.44 0.49  0.71 0.03 Relative Standard Error 6.5 5 0.44 0.49  0.71 0.03 5 0.44 0.49  0.71 0.03 Field Recovery 89.7 @ 4ng/ cm2 ( n= 6, SD = 7.18) 78.8 @ 40ng/ cm2 ( n= 6, SD = 5.90) 82.0 for DAT 0 samples ( n= 6, SD= 5.8) 86.5 for DAT 6 samples ( n= 6, SD= 10.6)

DAT 0 to DAT 1.0 values were corrected for field recovery of 78.8 percent DAT 2 to DAT 3 values were corrected for field recovery of 89.7 percent 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 DAT  2 0 2 4 6 8 10 LN of ng/ cm2 R square = 0.947 # pts = 15 y = 5.59 +  2.19x NC Trial 2  20 GPA Spreadsheet F8: MRID 446557 03 NC 2 Gallon Treatment ( 2,4 D DMA with MCPP p DMA and Dicamba DMA)

DAT GPA 2,4 D Raw Data ( ng/ cm2) 2,4 D Adjusted ( ng/ cm2) LN Rainfall ( inches) Application Method Groundboom Pre < 0.879 Application Rate ( lbs ae/ A) 1.76 0 2 87 110 4.70 0 Gallons/ Acre 2 0 2 270 343 5.84 0 0 2 102 129 4.86 0 LOQ( ng/ cm2) 0.879 0 5 247 313 5.75 0 LOD( ng/ cm2) Not Specified 0 5 146 185 5.22 0 0 5 195 247 5.51 0 Max TTR Percent TTR 0 20 136 173 5.15 0 DAT 0.0 200 1.0 0 20 99 126 4.83 0 0 20 140 178 5.18 0 0.50 2.00 96 121 4.80 0 Field Recovery 89.7 @ 4ng/ cm2 ( n= 6, SD = 7.18) 0.50 2.00 61.5 78 4.36 0 ( Percent) 78.8 @ 40ng/ cm2 ( n= 6, SD = 5.90) 0.50 2.00 57.1 72 4.28 0 82.0 for DAT 0 samples ( n= 6, SD= 5.8) 0.50 5 100 127 4.84 0 86.5 for DAT 6 samples ( n= 6, SD= 10.6) 0.50 5 79 100 4.61 0 0.50 5 132 168 5.12 0 Regression Output: 0.50 20 122 155 5.04 0 Constant 5.70 0.50 20 125 159 5.07 0 Std Err of Y Est 0.95 0.50 20 158 201 5.30 0 R Squared 0.87 1 2.00 177 225 5.41 0 No. of Observations 45 1 2.00 210 266 5.59 0 Degrees of Freedom 43 1 2.00 155 197 5.28 0 1 5 55.6 71 4.26 0 X Coefficient( s)  2.26 1 5 32.7 41 3.73 0 Std Err of Coef. 0.13 1 5 75.8 96 4.57 0 Relative Error 5.8 1 20 32 41 3.70 0 1 20 29 37 3.61 0 DAT 0 to DAT 1.0 values were corrected for field recovery of 78.8 percent 1 20 46 58 4.07 0 DAT 2 values were corrected for field recovery of 89.7 percent 2 2.00 1.61 1.79 0.58 0.17 2 2.00 0.44 0.49  0.71 0.17 2 2.00 0.44 0.49  0.71 0.17 2 5.00 1.00 1.11 0.11 0.17 2 5.00 0.44 0.49  0.71 0.17 2 5.00 0.44 0.49  0.71 0.17 2 20.00 1.23 1.37 0.32 0.17 2 20.00 1.50 1.67 0.51 0.17 2 20.00 1.65 1.84 0.61 0.17 3 2.00 0.44 0.49  0.71 0.46 3 2.00 0.94 1.05 0.05 0.46 3 2.00 0.49 0.55  0.60 0.46 3 5.00 0.44 0.49  0.71 0.46 3 5.00 0.44 0.49  0.71 0.46 3 5.00 0.44 0.49  0.71 0.46 3 20.00 0.44 0.49  0.71 0.46 3 20.00 0.44 0.49  0.71 0.46 3 20.00 0.44 0.49  0.71 0.46 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 DAT 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 LN of ng/ cm2 R square = 0.872 # pts = 45 y = 5.7 +  2.26x NC2  Average Spreadsheet F9: MRID 450331 01 CA Trial with 2,4 D DMA by itself DAT 2,4 D ( ng/ cm2) LN Rainfall ( inches) Application Method Groundboom Pre 0.088 Application Rate ( lbs ae/ A) 1.667 0.042 261 5.56 0 Gallons/ Acre 9.92 0.042 257 5.55 0 0.042 208 5.34 0 LOQ( ng/ cm2) 0.879 0.17 198 5.29 0 LOD( ng/ cm2) 0.088 0.17 243 5.49 0 0.17 223 5.41 0 Avg TTR Percent TTR 0.33 118 4.77 0 DAT 0.0042 242 1.3 0.33 123 4.81 0 DAT 0.5 591 3.2 0.33 144 4.97 0 0.5 463 6.14 0 0.5 663 6.50 0 Field fortification data: from MRID 446557 02 0.5 648 6.47 0 Recovery 100 @ 4ng/ cm2 ( n= 3, SD = 6.9) 1 65.3 4.18 0 ( Percent) 97.8 @ 40ng/ cm2 ( n= 3, SD = 9.8) 1 44.9 3.80 0 All samples were for DAT 0 1 45.8 3.82 0 2 56.9 4.04 0 Data was not corrected for field recovery 2 47.7 3.86 0 2 56.9 4.04 0 3 46.3 3.84 0 3 59.3 4.08 0 3 61.0 4.11 0 4 62.6 4.14 0 4 38.2 3.64 0 4 43.7 3.78 0 7 45.2 3.81 0 7 34.3 3.54 0 7 23.9 3.17 0 Note  DAT 0.5 samples were taken at night when there was dew.

Regression Output: Including DAT 0.5 Excluding DAT 0.5 Constant 5.21 4.92 Std Err of Y Est 0.67 0.48 R Squared 0.52 0.60 No. of Observations 27 24 Degrees of Freedom 25 22 X Coefficient( s)  0.30  0.25 Std Err of Coef. 0.059 0.043 Relative Error ( Percent) 19.4 17.3 Half Life 2.28 2.78 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 DAY AFTER TREATMENT 3 4 5 6 7 LN of ug/ cm2 California Trial  2,4 D DMA Spreadsheet F10: MRID 450331 01 CA Trial with 2,4 D DMA , MCPP p and Dicamba)

DAT 2,4 D Raw Data ( ng/ cm2) 2,4 D Adjusted ( ng/ cm2) LN Rainfall ( inches ) Application Method Groundboom Pre 0.088 Application Rate ( lbs ae/ A) 1.66 0.042 137 178 5.18 0 Gallons/ Acre 9.9 0.042 167 217 5.38 0 0.042 149 194 5.27 0 LOQ( ng/ cm2) 0.879 0.17 119 155 5.04 0 LOD( ng/ cm2) 0.088 0.17 145 189 5.24 0 0.17 154 201 5.30 0 Avg TTR Percent TTR 0.33 100 130 4.86 0 DAT 0.042 197 1.1 0.33 104 135 4.91 0 DAT 0.5 1458 7.8 0.33 74 96 4.57 0 0.5 820 1068 6.97 0 0.5 1180 1536 7.34 0 Field Recovery ( from MRID 446557 02) 0.5 1360 1771 7.48 0 ( Percent) 81.2 @ 4ng/ cm2 ( n= 6, SD= 17.1) 1 79 103 4.63 0 74.8 @ 40ng/ cm2 ( n= 6, SD= 12.1) 1 57 74 4.30 0 65.2 for DAT 0 samples ( n= 6, SD= 4.6) 1 71 93 4.53 0 90.8 for DAT 6 samples ( n= 6, SD= 6.8) 2 82 107 4.67 0 2 66 86 4.45 0 Field Recovery ( from MRID 446557 03) 2 61.2 80 4.38 0 ( Percent) 89.7 @ 4ng/ cm2 ( n= 6, SD = 7.18) 3 53.5 70 4.24 0 78.8 @ 40ng/ cm2 ( n= 6, SD = 5.90) 3 50.2 65 4.18 0 82.0 for DAT 0 samples ( n= 6, SD= 5.8) 3 40.6 53 3.97 0 86.5 for DAT 6 samples ( n= 6, SD= 10.6) 4 25.9 34 3.52 0 4 26.9 35 3.56 0 Average Recovery 4 29.0 38 3.63 0 85.5 @ 4 ng/ cm2 7 28.2 37 3.60 0 76.8 @ 40 ng/ cm2 7 22.2 29 3.36 0 7 21.9 29 3.35 0 Values were adjusted for average field recovery of 76.8 at 40 ng/ cm2 Note  DAT 0.5 samples were taken at night when there was dew.

Regression Output: Including DAT 0.5 Excluding DAT 0.5 Constant 5.43 5.00 Std Err of Y Est 0.81 0.28 R Squared 0.49 0.83 No. of Observations 27 24 Degrees of Freedom 25 22 X Coefficient( s)  0.346  0.26 Std Err of Coef. 0.071 0.025 Relative Error 20.5 9.5 Half Life 2.0 2.6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Day after Treatment 3 4 5 6 7 8 ln of ug/ cm2 California Trial  2,4 D DMA Mix Spreadsheet F11: MRID 450331 01 WI Trial with 2,4 D DMA DAT 2,4 D ( ng/ cm2) LN Rainfall ( inches) Application Method Groundboom Pre 0.088 Application Rate ( lbs ae/ A) 1.65 0.042 243 5.49 0 Gallons/ Acre 9.48 0.042 193 5.26 0 0.042 185 5.22 0 LOQ( ng/ cm2) 0.879 0.17 199 5.29 0 LOD( ng/ cm2) 0.088 0.17 152 5.02 0 0.17 226 5.42 0 Avg TTR Percent TTR 0.33 143 4.96 0.025 DAT 0.0042 207 1.1 0.33 128 4.85 0.025 0.33 94 4.54 0.025 0.5 165 5.11 0.145 Field Recovery ( from MRID 446557 02) 0.5 108 4.68 0.145 Field Recovery 100 @ 4ng/ cm2 ( n= 3, SD = 6.9) 0.5 56 4.02 0.145 ( Percent) 97.8 @ 40ng/ cm2 ( n= 3, SD = 9.8) 1 0.32  1.14 0.19 All samples were for DAT 0 1 1.13 0.12 0.19 1 1.13 0.12 0.19 Data was not corrected for field recovery 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 DAY AFTER TREATMENT  2  1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 LN of ug/ cm2 R square = 0.854 # pts = 15 y = 6.38 +  5.99x 2,4 D DMA Dissipation on Turf in Wisconsin ( When Applied by Itself) Spreadsheet F12: MRID 450331 01 WI Trial with 2,4 D DMA, MCPP p and Dicamba)

DAT 2,4 D Raw Data ( ng/ cm2) 2,4 D Adjusted ( ng/ cm2) LN Rainfall ( inches) Application Method Groundboom Pre 0.088 Application Rate ( lbs ae/ A) 1.64 0.042 117 152 5.03 0 Gallons/ Acre 9.42 0.042 130 169 5.13 0 0.042 111 145 4.97 0 LOQ( ng/ cm2) 0.879 0.17 92.9 121 4.80 0 LOD( ng/ cm2) 0.088 0.17 100 130 4.86 0 0.17 76.4 99 4.60 0 Avg TTR Percent TTR 0.33 147 191 5.25 0.025 DAT 0.0042 155 0.8 0.33 164 214 5.36 0.025 DAT 0.33 211 1.1 0.33 174 227 5.42 0.025 0.5 98.2 128 4.85 0.145 Field Recovery ( from MRID 446557 02) 0.5 59.4 77 4.35 0.145 ( Percent) 81.2 @ 4ng/ cm2 ( n= 6, SD= 17.1) 0.5 116 151 5.02 0.145 74.8 @ 40ng/ cm2 ( n= 6, SD= 12.1) 1 0.44 0.51  0.66 0.19 65.2 for DAT 0 samples ( n= 6, SD= 4.6) 1 0.44 0.51  0.66 0.19 90.8 for DAT 6 samples ( n= 6, SD= 6.8) 1 0.44 0.51  0.66 0.19 Field Recovery ( from MRID 446557 03) ( Percent) 89.7 @ 4ng/ cm2 ( n= 6, SD = 7.18) 78.8 @ 40ng/ cm2 ( n= 6, SD = 5.90) 82.0 for DAT 0 samples ( n= 6, SD= 5.8) 86.5 for DAT 6 samples ( n= 6, SD= 10.6)

Average Recovery 85.5 @ 4 ng/ cm2 76.8 @ 40 ng/ cm2 Values were adjusted for average field recovery of 76.8 at 40 ng/ cm2 and 85.5 at 4 ng/ cm2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 DAY AFTER TREATMENT  1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 LN of ug/ cm2 R square = 0.786 # pts = 15 y = 6.31 +  6.03x 2,4 D DMA Dissipation on Turf in Wisconsin ( When Applied with MCPP and Dicamba) Spreadsheet F13  Concurrent Laboratory Recovery for MRID 446557 03 ng/ cm2 Log recovery 0.878  0.057 95.7 0.878  0.057 92.7 0.878  0.057 106 2 0.246 110 1.76 0.246 86.4 1.76 0.246 99.4 1.76 0.246 88.6 1.76 0.246 83 3.51 0.545 85.2 4.39 0.642 87.2 4.39 0.642 74.9 4.39 0.642 83.8 4.39 0.642 85 8.79 0.944 81.2 8.79 0.944 81.9 8.79 0.944 95 8.79 0.944 65 8.79 0.944 71.2 17.6 1.246 86.4 17.6 1.246 67 17.6 1.246 73.9 35.1 1.545 69.5 35.1 1.545 69.2 43.9 1.642 76.8 43.9 1.642 77.4 87.9 1.944 69.4 176 2.246 73.9 351 2.545 84 AVG 82.8 STD 11.3  0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Log of Fortification Level ( ng/ cm2) 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Recovery R square = 0.401 # pts = 28 y = 92.5 +  10.5x Concurrent Recovery for NC 2 Cloth Spikes Spreadsheet F14  Concurrent Laboratory Recovery for MRID 450331 01 Site ng/ cm2 Log recovery California 0.879  0.056 118 0.879  0.056 98.5 1.76 0.246 127 1.76 0.246 113 2.2 0.342 97.3 4.39 0.642 91.8 4.39 0.642 88.8 4.39 0.642 114 4.39 0.642 95.9 8.79 0.944 102 87.9 1.944 109 176 2.246 123 176 2.246 106 176 2.246 99.4 176 2.246 96 527 2.722 91.1 1410 3.149 90.1 Mean 104 SD 11.5 WI Site 0.879  0.056 69.7 0.879  0.056 100 0.879  0.056 86.1 1.76 0.246 93.8 1.76 0.246 86.4 1.76 0.246 58 2.2 0.342 96.8 2.2 0.342 102 4.39 0.642 86.3 4.39 0.642 103 17.6 1.246 91.5 87.9 1.944 81.6 87.9 1.944 79.3 176 2.246 102 176 2.246 79 176 2.246 85.2 176 2.246 100 527 2.722 67.2 Mean 87.1 STD 12.7  1 0 1 2 3 4 Log of Fortification Level ( ng/ cm2) 80 90 100 110 120 130 Recovery R square = 0.0733 # pts = 17 y = 107 +  3.03x Concurrent Recovery for California Cloth Spikes  0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Log of Fortification Level ( ng/ cm2) 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 Recovery R square = 0.00971 # pts = 18 y = 88.5 +  1.28x Concurrent Recovery for Wisconsin Cloth Spikes